Ubc - 1979 - A7 Y68

MODIFIED
SUBSTITUTE
ANALYSIS
S T R U C T U R E METHOD
OF E X I S T I N G
R/C
FOR
STRUCTURES
by
SUMIO\YOSHIDA
B.
A.
Sc., U n i v e r s i t y
THESIS
THE
of British
SUBMITTED IN P A R T I A L
REQUIREMENTS
MASTER
FOR
Columbia,
1976
FULFILLMENT
OF
THE DEGREE
OF A P P L I E D
OF
SCIENCE
in"
THE
FACULTY
(Department
We
accept
THE
of Civil
this
the
OF GRADUATE
thesis
required
UNIVERSITY
(c)
Engineering)
as conforming
standard
OF B R I T I S H
March,
Sumio
STUDIES
COLUMBIA
19 79
Yoshida,
19 79
to
In presenting
this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for
an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that

the Library shall make i t freely available for reference and study.
I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis
for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or
by his representatives.
It is understood that copying or publication
of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my

written permission.
Department of
Civil
Engineering
The University of British Columbia

2075 Wesbrook Place
Vancouver, Canada
V6T 1W5
n a t p
March,
1979
ABSTRACT
The m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method i s developed

the earthquake hazard
for
e v a l u a t i o n o f e x i s t i n g r e i n f o r c e d concrete
b u i l d i n g s c o n s t r u c t e d before the most r e c e n t advances i n seismic

design codes.
The main c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the proposed method i s
the use of m o d i f i e d l i n e a r a n a l y s i s f o r p r e d i c t i n g the

i n c l u d i n g i n e l a s t i c response,
j e c t e d to a given type and
behaviour,
of e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e s when sub-
i n t e n s i t y of earthquake motion,
represented by a l i n e a r response spectrum.
The procedure i n -
v o l v e s an e x t e n t i o n of the s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method, which

o r i g i n a l l y proposed by Shibata and
Sozen as a design
was
procedure.
With p r o p e r t i e s and s t r e n g t h s of a s t r u c t u r e known, the m o d i f i e d

s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method computes d u c t i l i t y demand of each
member v i a an e l a s t i c modal a n a l y s i s , i n which reduced
s t i f f n e s s and
s u b s t i t u t e damping f a c t o r s are used
flexural
iteratively.
As a r e s u l t o f the a n a l y s i s , i t i s p o s s i b l e to d e s c r i b e , i n
g e n e r a l terms, the l o c a t i o n and extent of damage t h a t would occur
i n a s t r u c t u r e s u b j e c t e d to earthquakes of d i f f e r e n t
intensity.
S e v e r a l r e i n f o r c e d concrete s t r u c t u r e s of d i f f e r e n t
and
s t r e n g t h s were t e s t e d by the proposed method and the
compared w i t h a n o n l i n e a r dynamic a n a l y s i s .
number o f i t e r a t i o n s was
sizes
results
In g e n e r a l , a small
r e q u i r e d to o b t a i n an estimate o f damage
ratios.
The method appears t o work w e l l f o r s t r u c t u r e s i n which
y i e l d i n g i s not e x t e n s i v e and widespread.
Furthermore, i t
appears to work b e t t e r f o r those i n which y i e l d i n g occurs mainly

i n beams and the e f f e c t of h i g h e r modes i s not predominant.
Though f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i s necessary, the m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e
s t r u c t u r e method can c o n s t i t u t e an i n t e g r a l p a r t o f the r a t i o n a l
r e t r o f i t procedure.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT
i i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iv
LIST OF TABLES
v i i
LIST OF FIGURES
ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
xii
CHAPTER
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background
1. 2
L i t e r a t u r e Survey
1.3
2.
(a)
ATC Report
(b)
Okada and B r e s l e r
(c)
Freeman, N i c o l e t t i , and T y r r e l l . . .
Purpose and Scope
SUBSTITUTE
2.1
STRUCTURE METHOD
Modal A n a l y s i s
14
(a)
Equation of Motion
14
(b)
Periods and Mode Shapes
15
(c)
Response S p e c t r a
16
(d)
Modal Forces
IV
(e)
Combination of Forces and

Displacements
2.2
11
18
S u b s t i t u t e S t r u c t u r e Method
(a)
Development
20
(b)
23
(c)
Computer Program
29
CHAPTER
Page
2.3
2.4
3.
4.
5.
Examples and Observations

(a)
Frames w i t h F l e x i b l e Beams
31
(b)
S o f t - S t o r y Frame
33
(c)
2-Bay, 3-Story Frame
35
Equal-Area S t i f f n e s s Method
(a)
Observation
37
(b)
Equal-Area S t i f f n e s s
38
(c)
Examples
39
(d)
Area f o r F u r t h e r S t u d i e s
40
MODIFIED SUBSTITUTE STRUCTURE METHOD

3.1
M o d i f i e d S u b s t i t u t e S t r u c t u r e Method
42
3.2
Computer Program
51
3.3
Convergence
54
3.4
A c c e l e r a t e d Convergence
60
EXAMPLES
4.1
Assumptions and Comments
4.2
Examples
65
(a)
69
(b)
72
(c)
76
(d)
79
(e)
Observations
83
FACTORS AFFECTING MODIFIED SUBSTITUTE

STRUCTURE METHOD
5.1
E f f e c t o f Higher Modes
86
5.2
Spectrum
91
5.3
G u i d e l i n e s f o r Use o f Method
96
VI
CHAPTER
Page
5.4
6.
Further Studies
CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
99
101
16 7
APPENDIX
A.
B.
M o d i f i c a t i o n of Damage R a t i o - S t r a i n Hardening
Case
169
Computer Program
17 3
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table
2.1
Page
N a t u r a l P e r i o d s and Smeared Damping R a t i o s f o r
3-, 5-, and 10-Story Frames
2.2
Computed Damage R a t i o s f o r 3-, 5-, and 10-Story

Frames
2.3
10 4
Comparison o f Damage R a t i o s f o r 3-, 5-, and

10-Story Frames
2.4
103
105
Computed N a t u r a l P e r i o d s f o r 3-, 5-, and

10-Story Frames
106
3.1
N a t u r a l P e r i o d s f o r 2-Bay, 3-Story Frame A
106
3.2
Damage R a t i o s f o r 2-Bay, 3-Story Frame A
107
3.3
N a t u r a l P e r i o d s f o r 2-Bay, 3-Story Frame B
108
3.4
Number of I t e r a t i o n s - 2-Bay, 3-Story Frame B....
108
3.5
Damage R a t i o s f o r 2-Bay, 3-Story Frame B
109
4.1
N a t u r a l P e r i o d s f o r 2-Bay, 2-Story Frame
109
4.2
Displacements f o r 2-Bay, 2-Story Frame
110
4.3
110
4.4
110
4.5
I l l
4.6
I l l
4.7
I l l
4.8
5.1
N a t u r a l P e r i o d s f o r 3-Bay, 6-Story Frame A Spectrum B
5.2
112
112
Displacements f o r 3-Bay, 6-Story Frame A Spectrum B
112
viii
Table
5.3
Page
N a t u r a l P e r i o d s f o r 3-Bay, 6-Story Frame B Spectrum
5.4
113
Displacements f o r 3-Bay, 6-Story Frame B Spectrum
5.5
113
N a t u r a l Periods f o r 3-Bay, 6-Story Frame B Spectrum A
5.6
Displacements f o r 3-Bay, 6-Story Frame B Spectrum
5.7
114
N a t u r a l P e r i o d s f o r 3-Bay, 6-Story Frame B E l Centro EW Spectrum
5.8
113
and T a f t S69E Spectrum
Displacements f o r 3-Bay, 6-Story Frame B E l Centro EW Spectrum
5.9
115
Displacements f o r 3-Bay, 6-Story Frame B T a f t S69E Spectrum
5.10
115
N a t u r a l Periods f o r 3-Bay, 6-Story Frame A E l Centro EW Spectrum
5.11
and T a f t S69E Spectrum
116
Displacements f o r 3-Bay, 6-Story Frame A E l Centro EW Spectrum
5.12
114
116
Displacements f o r 3-Bay, 6-Story Frame A T a f t S69E Spectrum
117
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1.1
Page
Load-Deflection
Curve f o r E l a s t i c and
E l a s t o p l a s t i c Structure
2.1
118
I d e a l i z e d H y s t e r e s i s Loop f o r R e i n f o r c e d
Concrete System
2.2
118
Force-Displacement Curve - D e f i n i t i o n o f
Damage R a t i o
119
2.3
Flow Diagram f o r S u b s t i t u t e S t r u c t u r e Method
12 0
2.4
Member P r o p e r t i e s and Design Moments f o r 3-,

5-, 10-Story Frames
12 3
2.5
Smoothed Response Spectrum - Design Spectrum A...
124
2.6
S o f t Story Frame A - Member P r o p e r t i e s and

Y i e l d Moments..
2.7
125
S o f t Story Frame A - Damage R a t i o s f o r I n d i v i d u a l

Earthquakes
2.8
126
S o f t Story Frame B - Member P r o p e r t i e s and

Y i e l d Moments
2.9
12 7
S o f t Story Frame B - Damage Ratios f o r I n d i v i d u a l

Earthquakes
2.10
12 8
2-Bay, 3-Story Frame - Member P r o p e r t i e s and

Y i e l d Moments..
2.11
2-Bay, 3-Story Frame - Damage Ratios f o r

I n d i v i d u a l Earthquakes
2.12
129
Force-Displacement Curve - D e f i n i t i o n o f
Equal-Area S t i f f n e s s
3.1
130
131
Moment-Rotation Curve - M o d i f i c a t i o n o f Damage

Ratio...
132
Figure
3.2
Page
Flow
Diagram
f o r Modified
Substitute
Structure
Method
3.3
2-Bay,
and
3.4
3.5
Yield
3.8
2-Bay,
3-Story
2-Bay,
Frame
3-Story
Frame
of Periods vs.
137
- Plot
o f Damage
Ratios
138
- Member
P r o p e r t i e s and
139
of Iterations
2-Bay,
3-Story
and
A - Plot
Moments
Number
Frame
Frame
t h e E n d o f 4,
3-Story
Number
2-Bay,
Properties
of Iterations
3-Story
vs.
4.1
Frame
2-Bay,
2-Bay,
- Member
136
of Iterations
Number
Moments
Number
at
3.9
Frame
3-Story
Yield
3.7
3-Story
2-Bay,
vs.
3.6
13 3
of Periods vs.
140
B - Damage
1 2 , 2 0 , a n d 200
Frame
B - Plot
Ratios
Computed
Iterations
o f Damage
Frame
142
Member
Properties
Moments
14 3
4.2
2-Bay,
2-Story
Frame
Damage
Ratios
4.3
2-Bay,
2-Story
Frame
Damage
Ratios f o r
Individual
4.4
3-Bay,
and
Earthquakes
3-Story
Yield
Frame
Member
Properties
Moments
145
3-Bay,
3-Story
Frame
Damage
Ratios
4.6
3-Bay,
3-Story
Frame
Damage
Ratios f o r
Earthquakes
14 3
144
4.5
Individual
141
Ratios
of Iterations
2-Story
Yield
B - Plot
146
14 7
xi
Figure
4.7
Page
Y i e l d Moments
14 8
4.8
1-Bay, 6-Story Frame - Damage R a t i o s
149
4.9
1-Bay, 6-Story Frame - Damage R a t i o s f o r

4.10
150

Y i e l d Moments
151
4.11
152
4.12

15 3
5.1
Smoothed Response Spectrum - Design Spectrum B...
154
5.2
3-Bay, 6-Story Frame A - Damage R a t i o s
155
5.3
3-Bay, 6-Story Frame A - P l o t o f Damage R a t i o s

f o r Beams i n the E x t e r i o r Bay.
156
5.4
3-Bay, 6-Story Frame B - Damage R a t i o s
15 7
5.5
3-Bay, 6-Story Frame B - P l o t o f Damage R a t i o s

f o r Beams i n the E x t e r i o r Bay.
158
5.6
159
5.7
3-Bay, 6-Story Frame B - Damage R a t i o s f o r

160
5.8
E l Centro EW Spectrum and Design Spectrum.A
161
5.9
T a f t S69E Spectrum and Design Spectrum A
162
5.10
16 3
5.11
16 4
5.12
16 5
5.13
166
A.l
Moment-Rotation Curve
xii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The
author wishes t o express h i s s i n c e r e g r a t i t u d e t o h i s
s u p e r v i s o r s , Dr. N. D. Nathan, Dr. D. L. Anderson, and Dr. S.

Cherry
f o r t h e i r advice and guidance d u r i n g the r e s e a r c h and
preparation of t h i s thesis.
Thanks are a l s o due t o Mr. R.
G r i g g , the C i v i l E n g i n e e r i n g
Department program l i b r a r i a n ,
f o r h i s advice and a s s i s t a n c e .
The
f i n a n c i a l support
of the N a t i o n a l Research C o u n c i l of
Canada i n the form of Postgraduate S c h o l a r s h i p i s g r a t e f u l l y

acknowledged.
March, 19 79
Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia
CHAPTER 1
1.1
INTRODUCTION
Background
During
the l a s t two
decades a g r e a t d e a l of progress
has
been made i n understanding
the behaviour of b u i l d i n g s d u r i n g
major earthquake motions.
The
new
knowledge r e s u l t i n g from
r e s e a r c h and o b s e r v a t i o n has been i n c o r p o r a t e d i n b u i l d i n g

codes.
I t i s not reasonable
designed
to expect the m a j o r i t y of newly
b u i l d i n g s to be able to s u r v i v e a major earthquake
motion w i t h t o l e r a b l e damage.
Unfortunately,
which were designed
i n s e i s m i c codes.
i n any
l a r g e c i t y there e x i s t many b u i l d i n g s
and c o n s t r u c t e d b e f o r e the r e c e n t advances

The performance of these b u i l d i n g s are at
best u n c e r t a i n i f and when a s i z a b l e earthquake s t r i k e s the

The
area.
c i t y a u t h o r i t i e s must assess the s e i s m i c r i s k s i n v o l v e d i n
such b u i l d i n g s from time to time.
T h i s p o i n t a r i s e s most o f t e n
when an owner of an o l d b u i l d i n g wishes to change the occupancy

or do a s t r u c t u r a l a l t e r a t i o n .
permit,
Before
i s s u i n g a new
the a u t h o r i t i e s must make a d e c i s i o n on how
p l i e s with c u r r e n t codes.
Unless
building
w e l l i t com-
the b u i l d i n g i s judged to be
s a f e , they must decide on the m o d i f i c a t i o n s t h a t have to be made

i n order to upgrade i t to a s a t i s f a c t o r y l e v e l .
Upon t h e i r
recommendations the owner can decide whether i t i s f e a s i b l e to
2
c a r r y on w i t h h i s p l a n o r whether i t i s more economical t o
r e p l a c e the b u i l d i n g w i t h a new
one.
' I t i s , t h e r e f o r e , necessary t o develop a methodology to

screen and e v a l u a t e e x i s t i n g b u i l d i n g s a g a i n s t s e i s m i c hazards.
Many i s s u e s are i n v o l v e d here, but the most d i f f i c u l t one i s
how
to assess the degree o f compliance w i t h the c u r r e n t s e i s m i c
codes.
I t i s a p p r o p r i a t e here t o d e s c r i b e b r i e f l y the p h i l o s -
ophy behind the c u r r e n t codes, which should be borne i n mind

when the e v a l u a t i o n of e x i s t i n g b u i l d i n g s i s d i s c u s s e d l a t e r .
The c u r r e n t code procedure f o r the design of new
i s based on the assumption
that a structure w i l l y i e l d
buildings
in a
major earthquake, but t h a t i t s u l t i m a t e displacement w i l l be

approximately equal to the displacement of the same s t r u c t u r e
i f i t remained e l a s t i c d u r i n g the earthquake as i l l u s t r a t e d i n
Fig.
1.1.
I t s h o u l d be noted t h a t the s t i f f n e s s
o f the s t r u c -
t u r e i s u s u a l l y predetermined by the l a y o u t and the design f o r

g r a v i t y loads.
The combination o f d u c t i l i t y and s t r e n g t h must
be chosen such t h a t the s t r u c t u r e reaches i t s maximum l o a d maximum displacement r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h o n l y a t o l e r a b l e
level
of damage.
The code, such as the N a t i o n a l B u i l d i n g Code of Canada,^
achieves t h i s combination of s t r e n g t h and d u c t i l i t y by e s t i mating the a v a i l a b l e d u c t i l i t y f o r the p a r t i c u l a r
structural
system s e l e c t e d f o r the design of the b u i l d i n g , and the l o a d

l e v e l i s set accordingly.
Thus a d u c t i l e system may
f o r a lower l o a d l e v e l than a more b r i t t l e system.
be designed
The code
a l s o s p e c i f i e s the d e t a i l e d design requirements t o ensure t h a t

t h i s d u c t i l e f a i l u r e mode occurs b e f o r e the b r i t t l e
failure
3
modes a s s o c i a t e d with shear, bond o r d e t a i l
The
failure.
code a c t u a l l y gives a q u a s i - s t a t i c f o r c e such t h a t
the s t r u c t u r e i s s a t i s f a c t o r y i f i t can r e s i s t t h a t f o r c e ,
provided
t h a t i t i s d e t a i l e d p r o p e r l y t o ensure the a n t i c i p a t e d
d u c t i l i t y and t h a t i t i s a l s o d e t a i l e d c o r r e c t l y to ensure the

d e s i r a b l e f l e x u r e f a i l u r e mode.
I t should
described
now be c l e a r t h a t without the philosophy
above the code s t a t i c f o r c e i s meaningless.
It i s
not the a c t u a l f o r c e which a s t r u c t u r e i s expected t o r e c e i v e

d u r i n g a major earthquake i f i t i s designed and d e t a i l e d d i f f e r e n t l y from the c u r r e n t codes.
obviously
The e x i s t i n g b u i l d i n g s were
designed w i t h a d i f f e r e n t philosophy
from the one
i m p l i e d i n the c u r r e n t codes, and merely a p p l y i n g

s t a t i c load i s a questionable
The
the q u a s i -
approach.
best way t o analyze e x i s t i n g b u i l d i n g s i s t o s u b j e c t
them t o a n o n l i n e a r
time-step a n a l y s i s .
Recent advances i n
computer technology have made t h i s approach p o s s i b l e .
But the
c o s t i n v o l v e d i n such a n a l y s i s i s s t i l l p r o h i b i t i v e l y h i g h and
it
The
r e q u i r e s very accurate
modelling
h i g h c o s t and tediousness
except i n very
o f the e n t i r e s t r u c t u r e .
make t h i s a n a l y s i s i m p r a c t i c a l
few cases.
S e v e r a l proposals
have been made t o f i n d a more p r a c t i c a l
way t o t r e a t the problem o f a n a l y z i n g
the e x i s t i n g b u i l d i n g s ,
which i s becoming known by the somewhat i n f e l i c i t i o u s

"retrofit."
term,
4
1.2
Literature
Survey
The l i t e r a t u r e survey i n t h i s s e c t i o n i s i n t e n d e d t o be
an i n t r o d u c t i o n t o the approaches t h a t must be f o l l o w e d i n o r d e r
to i d e n t i f y the p o t e n t i a l l y hazardous b u i l d i n g s and t o e s t i m a t e
an e x t e n t o f hazards and an a s s o c i a t e d damage.
Three papers are
discussed.
(a)
ATC Report
The A p p l i e d Technology C o u n c i l i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s made a
f i r s t attempt a t a comprehensive
procedure f o r the s e i s m i c
2
hazard e v a l u a t i o n o f e x i s t i n g b u i l d i n g s .
The r e l e v a n t
section
o f ATC I I I , the r e p o r t o f the c o u n c i l , i s b r i e f l y d i s c u s s e d here.

ATC I I I p o i n t s out t h a t there are probably thousands o f
b u i l d i n g s i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s which are p o t e n t i a l l y
hazardous.
ically
earthquake
Since a thorough study o f a l l b u i l d i n g s i s econom-
i m p o s s i b l e , they suggest a graduated procedure.
They a r e ,
(1)
S e l e c t i o n t o i d e n t i f y p o t e n t i a l l y hazardous
buildings
(2)
E v a l u a t i o n t o e s t a b l i s h the p o s s i b l e e x t e n t o f hazards
(3)
C o r r e c t i o n t o ensure the e l i m i n a t i o n o f unacceptable

hazards.
The f i r s t s t e p i s t o screen the p o t e n t i a l l y
buildings.
hazardous
The s e i s m i c hazard i s r e l a t e d t o the s e v e r i t y o f
the ground motion and the usage o f b u i l d i n g s .
The s e v e r i t y o f
the ground motion i s i n d i c a t e d by the Seismic Hazard Index SHI

c o r r e l a t e d w i t h ground motion.
SHI ranges from 1 t o 4, w i t h
the h i g h e r number i n d i c a t i n g g r e a t e r s e v e r i t y .
The usage o f
5
the b u i l d i n g s i s indexed by the Seismic
SHE.
SHE
Hazard Exposure Group
ranges from I to I I I , w i t h the h i g h e r number i n d i c a t i n g
l e s s usage.
The b u i l d i n g s i n the area where the Seismic
Hazard Index
i s l e s s than or equal to 3 are excluded from a n a l y s i s .
In
area where SHI
SHE-III
i s 4, the newer b u i l d i n g s and
b u i l d i n g s w i t h low
h i s t o r i c a l values
The
SHE-II and
occupancy are a l s o exempt.

are subjected
The
the
b u i l d i n g s with
to the a l t e r n a t e procedure.
e v a l u a t i o n procedure may
tative.
A q u a l i t a t i v e evaluation
groups.
The
be q u a l i t a t i v e o r
i s required
quanti-
f o r SHE-II and
procedure i s p r e s c r i b e d i n the r e p o r t .
-III
It involves
a judgement on the adequacy o f the primary s t r u c t u r a l system

n o n s t r u c t u r a l elements, and
SHE-I b u i l d i n g s and
i t can be
c a r r i e d out very r a p i d l y .
those judged u n c e r t a i n
i n the
previous
a n a l y s i s are s u b j e c t to more thorough a n a l y t i c a l s t u d i e s .

aseismic
The
design
procedure f o r new
and
constructions
procedure i n v o l v e s the determination
The
are s t i p u l a t e d .
of an earthquake capa-
c i t y r a t i o , R , which i s a r a t i o of a c t u a l l a t e r a l s e i s m i c
c a p a c i t y of an e x i s t i n g system or element to the
force
capacity
r e q u i r e d to meet the p r e v a i l i n g s e i s m i c code p r o v i s i o n s f o r the

design
of new
buildings.
The
occupancy p o t e n t i a l are a l s o used
to assess b u i l d i n g hazards.
The
t o t a l l a t e r a l seismic
b u i l d i n g height
and
and
f o r c e i s d i s t r i b u t e d over
the r e s u l t i n g a p p l i e d member moment, shear,
a x i a l f o r c e s are e v a l u a t e d
at p a r t i c u l a r sections.
The
member c a p a c i t i e s can be c a l c u l a t e d from the known s e c t i o n

material properties.
by d i v i d i n g the
the
The
and
earthquake c a p a c i t y r a t i o i s computed
s e c t i o n c a p a c i t y a v a i l a b l e f o r earthquake
loading
6
by the s e i s m i c a l l y induced l o a d .
The
r a t i o s are computed f o r
moments, shear, a x i a l f o r c e s , and
drift.
The
smallest
governs the earthquake c a p a c i t y of the b u i l d i n g .
ratio
In the
o p i n i o n , a d i s t i n c t i o n should be made i n f a i l u r e modes.
author's
A
f a i l u r e i n bending i s much more p r e f e r a b l e to a f a i l u r e i n shear

and
i t i s not proper to t r e a t them e q u a l l y i n choosing
governing earthquake c a p a c i t y
ratio.
Unless the earthquake c a p a c i t y r a t i o i s g r e a t e r

equal t o one,
b u i l d i n g and
acceptable
there
i s a hazard which i s a f u n c t i o n o f
the occupancy p o t e n t i a l .
according
(b)
ATC
earthquake c a p a c i t y r a t i o s and
meet the requirements must be
than or
the
s e t s the minimum
those which f a i l
to
strengthened or demolished
to the schedule o u t l i n e d i n the
Okada and
Bresler
Okada and
B r e s l e r i n "Strength
E x i s t i n g Low-Rise R e i n f o r c e d
the
and
report.
D u c t i l i t y Evaluation
Concrete B u i l d i n g s -
of
Screening
Method"
describes
a procedure f o r e v a l u a t i n g the s e i s m i c
o f l o w - r i s e r e i n f o r c e d concrete
structures.
T h e i r method con-
s i s t s of s e r i e s of steps which are repeated i n s u c c e s s i v e

w i t h more r e f i n e d modeling.
Three s c r e e n i n g
the
Each c y c l e r e p r e s e n t s
c y c l e s are proposed and
f i r s t execution
the f i r s t
I t a l s o shows how
cycles
"screening".
screening
of the b a s i c procedure, i s d e s c r i b e d
d e t a i l i n t h e i r paper.
safety
cycle,
in
t h i s procedure can
be
i s based on approximate e v a l u a t i o n
of
a p p l i e d to e x i s t i n g s c h o o l b u i l d i n g s .
The
f i r s t screening
the l o a d - d e f l e c t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the
story.
The
f i r s t or weakest
second i n v o l v e s a more p r e c i s e estimate of o v e r a l l
s t r u c t u r a l behaviour, and i n the t h i r d s c r e e n i n g n o n l i n e a r i t y

of
each member i s modeled.

In
d e s c r i b i n g the f i r s t s c r e e n i n g procedure, the authors
p o i n t out t h a t the c r i t e r i a which d e f i n e the p e r m i s s i b l e damage

r e s u l t i n g from a s p e c i f i e d earthquake are the most important
f a c t o r s which determine s t r u c t u r a l adequacy.
Two grades o f
earthquake motions and two c o r r e s p o n d i n g degrees o f b u i l d i n g

damage are chosen.
Three types o f f a i l u r e modes, bending,
shear and shear bending are c o n s i d e r e d .

The procedure c o n s i s t s o f f i v e major s t e p s , namely,
Cl)
s t r u c t u r a l modeling
(2)
a n a l y t i c a l modeling
(3)
strength safety
(4)
d u c t i l i t y safety evaluation
(.5)
synthesis evaluation of safety.
evaluation
The s t r u c t u r a l modeling i s i n i t i a t e d by i d e n t i f y i n g the

l o a d t r a n s m i s s i o n system o f the b u i l d i n g from examining
design c a l c u l a t i o n s and f i e l d
investigations.
The main items t o
be determined are s t r u c t u r a l system, l o a d i n t e n s i t y ,

of
m a t e r i a l s , d e s i g n method, and o t h e r s p e c i a l
features.
drawings,
properties
structural
S e v e r a l models may have t o be c o n s i d e r e d .
The a n a l y t i c a l modeling i s done t o e v a l u a t e s t r u c t u r a l

response under l a t e r a l f o r c e s .
C
scl'
The shear c r a c k i n g
strength,
shear s t r e n g t h , C g , and bending s t r e n g t h , Cg ^,

u l
i n terms o f base shear c o e f f i c i e n t s are computed.
The compar-
i s o n o f the three i d e n t i f i e s the type o f f a i l u r e .
The s t r e n g t h
i s e v a l u a t e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o shear c r a c k i n g , u l t i m a t e shear
s t r e n g t h , and bending s t r e n g t h .
The c a p a c i t y w i t h r e s p e c t t o
8
each o f these three f a i l u r e modes and t h e i r r e l a t i v e v a l u e s are
weighed h e a v i l y i n e v a l u a t i n g the s t r u c t u r e .
The
fundamental
p e r i o d and the modal p a r t i c i p a t i o n f a c t o r are computed i n an

approximate manner.
The s t r e n g t h s a f e t y e v a l u a t i o n determines the adequacy
l a t e r a l strength.
of
For t h i s purpose a l i n e a r earthquake response
a n a l y s i s i s used w i t h a s t a n d a r d i z e d response spectrum.
In c a l -
c u l a t i n g the l i n e a r response i n terms o f base shear c o e f f i c i e n t ,

C,
E
the b u i l d i n g assumed t o be a story-level-lumped-mass system
w i t h the number o f s t o r i e s equal t o the number of degrees o f

freedom.
Only the f i r s t mode shape i s c o n s i d e r e d .
The d u c t i l i t y s a f e t y e v a l u a t i o n estimates the f i r s t
story
displacement u s i n g n o n l i n e a r displacement response s p e c t r a and

m o d i f i e d modal p a r t i c i p a t i o n f a c t o r to i d e a l i z e the n o n l i n e a r
behaviour of the b u i l d i n g .
b u i l d i n g , which i s modeled
The response d u c t i l i t y of the

as the e q u i v a l e n t one-mass system, i s
compared w i t h the s p e c i f i e d l i m i t
value.
The f i n a l step i s the s y n t h e s i s e v a l u a t i o n of s a f e t y .
The
assumptions and unknowns i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the s c r e e n i n g p r o c e s s

and the need f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n of the e x i s t i n g b u i l d i n g are c a r e f u l l y analyzed.
Those b u i l d i n g s which f a i l e d to pass the
first
s c r e e n i n g are c l a s s i f i e d u n c e r t a i n and must go through the second

and subsequent s c r e e n i n g procedure.
The procedure s e t f o r t h by Okada and B r e s l e r r e p r e s e n t s a
r a t i o n a l approach to the problem of e v a l u a t i n g e x i s t i n g b u i l d i n g s ,
and the p r e s e n t method of a n a l y s i s c o u l d be f i t t e d
screening process.
into
their
9
(c)
Freeman, N i c o l e t t i , and T y r r e l l
The
procedure d e s c r i b e d
f o r Seismic
i n "Evaluation of E x i s t i n g Buildings
Risk -- A Case Study o f Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard,
Bremerton, Washington," by Freeman e t a l .
i s intended
to f i l l
the gap between s t a t i s t i c a l procedures f o r l a r g e areas, and

d e t a i l e d s t r u c t u r a l dynamic a n a l y s i s o f i n d i v i d u a l b u i l d i n g s .
I t s main f e a t u r e i s a very r a p i d s c r e e n i n g
a n a l y s i s w i t h minimum o f c a l c u l a t i o n .
Sound Naval Shipyard
process and a simple
The s t r u c t u r e a t the Puget
a t Bremerton, Washington, was s t u d i e d and
the f i n d i n g s were r e p o r t e d .
A t o t a l of 9 6 buildings of d i f f e r e n t
s i z e , age, m a t e r i a l s , type o f c o n s t r u c t i o n and occupancy i s e v a l uated f o r the o v e r a l l v u l n e r a b i l i t y t o earthquake damage.

The
study i s performed i n s i x phases, namely,
(1)
a v i s u a l survey o f 9 6 b u i l d i n g s
C2)
i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f two r e p r e s e n t a t i v e
(3)
determination
(4)
estimation
(5)
d e t a i l e d i n v e s t i g a t i o n of f i v e c r i t i c a l
(6)
estimation
buildings
o f the s e i s m i c i t y o f the area
o f probable damage f o r 80 b u i l d i n g s
buildings
o f the average annual c o s t s o f expected
earthquake damage f o r 40 b u i l d i n g s .
Phases
C D t o (3) need l i t t l e
explanation.
The f i n d i n g s i n the
second phase a r e used f o r the next phases o f study.

phase response a c c e l e r a t i o n s p e c t r a a r e c o n s t r u c t e d
seismic records
the
In the t h i r d
from the
i n the area and are used f o r the phase four o f
study.
The
analyzing
f o u r t h phase i s the most r e l e v a n t t o t h i s r e p o r t .
In
the s t r u c t u r e s emphasis was p l a c e d on m i n i m i z a t i o n
of
the man-hours spent.
The l a t e r a l f o r c e s t r e n g t h
c a p a c i t i e s were
10
roughly
looked
approximated and the n o n - s t r u c t u r a l m a t e r i a l s were a l s o

at.
The base shear c a p a c i t i e s were used t o e s t a b l i s h the
y i e l d l i m i t and the u l t i m a t e
the base shear represented
limit.
The former i s d e f i n e d as
by the f o r c e r e q u i r e d t o reach the
c a p a c i t y o f the most r i g i d l a t e r a l f o r c e - r e s i s t i n g system.
The
l a t t e r i s d e f i n e d as the base shear "required t o cause the most

f l e x i b l e l a t e r a l f o r c e - r e s i s t i n g system t o y i e l d a f t e r the
c o l l a p s e o r y i e l d of the more r i g i d ones.
These were converted
to s p e c t r a l a c c e l e r a t i o n c a p a c i t i e s by d i v i d i n g by the weight of
structure.
The dynamic response c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and the p e r i o d s
were estimated by approximate methods.

Assumptions were made t o s i m p l i f y the e v a l u a t i o n o f damage.
The damage l e v e l was assumed t o vary
l i m i t t o 100% a t the u l t i m a t e
nonlinear
limit.
l i n e a r l y from 0% at y i e l d
In the i n e l a s t i c range
e f f e c t s were taken i n t o account by l i n e a r l y
the damping between the two l i m i t s .
varying
The procedure used f o r e s t i -
mating damage was based on r e c o n c i l i a t i o n o f the demand s p e c t r a l

a c c e l e r a t i o n and the c a p a c i t y of the s t r u c t u r e i n r e l a t i o n to
periods
and damping.
A graphical solution f o r estimating
centage damage was developed.
per-
The a n a l y s i s was done i n two
d i r e c t i o n s and a weighted average was
computed.
Sets o f response s p e c t r a were chosen t o r e p r e s e n t the

earthquake motions w i t h d i f f e r e n t r e t u r n p e r i o d s .
From the
damage l e v e l s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h those r e t u r n p e r i o d s
the annual
costs were computed f o r the 80 b u i l d i n g s .

The authors c l a i m t h a t the r e s u l t o f the procedure can be
used to decide which b u i l d i n g s are most s u s c e p t i b l e to earthquake
damage and t h a t the e f f e c t s o f m o d i f i c a t i o n on e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e s
can be found.
11
1.3
Purpose and
The
Scope
three papers d i s c u s s e d
i n the previous
section
t r a t e the type of approach t h a t must be taken i n order
illus-
to a n a l y z e
a l a r g e number o f e x i s t i n g b u i l d i n g s which are p o t e n t i a l s e i s m i c

hazards.
They a l l s e t up s c r e e n i n g
t i a l l y hazardous b u i l d i n g s and
analysis.
procedures to s e l e c t poten-
then s u b j e c t them to
seismic
I t i s beyond the scope of t h i s t h e s i s to comment on
the s c r e e n i n g
procedure; the s t r u c t u r a l a n a l y s i s , however,
deserves a few
comments.
2
The
seismic
ATC-III r e p o r t
suggests the use
of the q u a s i - s t a t i c
f o r c e s i n the c u r r e n t codes f o r the a n a l y s i s .
explained
i n the f i r s t
meaningless unless
p r o p e r t i e s and
mendations.
the
s e c t i o n of t h i s chapter,
are
s t r u c t u r e s were designed w i t h the d u c t i l e
the proper d e t a i l i n g i m p l i e d by the code recom-
Even i f a s t r u c t u r e can c a r r y o n l y a f r a c t i o n o f
because i n a c t u a l earthquakes the
tile
was
these f o r c e s
q u a s i - s t a t i c f o r c e s , c o l l a p s e or major damage may
and
As
not
the
occur,
f o r c e s w i l l be r e d i s t r i b u t e d
the b u i l d i n g w i l l respond d i f f e r e n t l y depending on i t s ducproperties.

3
B r e s l e r ' s methods
modelling
takes n o n l i n e a r i t y i n t o account
the s t r u c t u r e as a one-mass system and
of n o n l i n e a r
response s p e c t r a .
r i s e s t r u c t u r e s and,
The
through the
a n a l y s i s i s intended
f o r t h i s purpose, the assumptions
s i m p l i f i c a t i o n s t h a t the authors made are s a t i s f a c t o r y .

extension
for
use
low-
and
An
of the method to the a n a l y s i s of medium- to h i g h - r i s e
b u i l d i n g s w i l l , however, i n v o l v e major m o d i f i c a t i o n s
method.
by
to
their
12
Freeman's method
to
i s a t b e s t approximate.
Their
approach
i n c l u s i o n o f n o n l i n e a r i t y i n t h e i r a n a l y s i s has many assump-
t i o n s and s i m p l i f i c a t i o n s .
The method i s probably e f f e c t i v e f o r
s c r e e n i n g many one- t o two-story, s i n g l e - b a y b u i l d i n g s , b u t the

e x t e n s i o n of t h i s method t o l a r g e r b u i l d i n g s i s o f q u e s t i o n a b l e
value.
It
i s c l e a r t h a t a procedure f o r a n a l y s i s o f e x i s t i n g
b u i l d i n g s a g a i n s t s e i s m i c hazards must be developed, e s p e c i a l l y

for
those b u i l d i n g s which are judged u n c e r t a i n a f t e r the i n i t i a l
screening process.
The procedure must be capable o f h a n d l i n g
medium- t o h i g h - r i s e s t r u c t u r e s without major assumptions and

simplifications.
I t i s desirable that d i f f e r e n t
earthquake
motions can be used t o o b t a i n a good e s t i m a t e o f behaviour o f

the
s t r u c t u r e and t h a t .the a n a l y s i s should i n c l u d e the e f f e c t s o f
n o n l i n e a r i t y a f t e r the y i e l d o f some o f the members.
A t the
same time the procedure must be simple and r e a s o n a b l y economical

to use.
Such a procedure i s developed and d e s c r i b e d i n the subsequent c h a p t e r s .
The m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method i s
intended t o f i l l
the gap between s i m p l i f i e d
structural
and the f u l l - s c a l e , n o n l i n e a r time-step a n a l y s i s .
analysis
The proposed
method i s s u i t a b l e f o r r e i n f o r c e d concrete frame s t r u c t u r e s , but

it
i s hoped t h a t i t can be used f o r s h e a r - w a l l type b u i l d i n g s
and s t e e l s t r u c t u r e s .
The procedure i s a m o d i f i e d e l a s t i c modal
a n a l y s i s , which i s developed from a design concept proposed by

Shibata and Sozen.^
5 .
The design procedure proposed by S h i b a t a and Sozen
described f i r s t
is
i n o r d e r t o d i s c u s s the theory and assumptions
which are e s s e n t i a l i n understanding
the proposed
b r i e f d i s c u s s i o n modal a n a l y s i s i s i n c l u d e d .
d e s i g n procedure
are a l s o presented.
method.
Examples of the
An a l t e r n a t e approach i s
d e s c r i b e d and the f i n d i n g s are d i s c u s s e d .

Then the m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method i s presented
i n the next chapter.
The
theory behind t h i s procedure
is dis-
cussed as w e l l as the development of the computer program.

it
i s an i t e r a t i v e procedure,
Since
convergence c r i t e r i a are d i s c u s s e d .
A method to achieve f a s t e r convergence i s i n t r o d u c e d .

In o r d e r to t e s t the v a l i d i t y of the m o d i f i e d
substitute
s t r u c t u r e method, frames of d i f f e r e n t type and h e i g h t are analyzed.
A comparison of r e s u l t s w i t h those of n o n l i n e a r dynamic
a n a l y s i s i s presented.
described i n t h i s
A l l the assumptions are presented
and
section.
In the f i n a l chapter f a c t o r s which a f f e c t the r e s u l t s of

the a n a l y s i s are d i s c u s s e d , and a p r e l i m i n a r y g u i d e l i n e i s
presented f o r s u c c e s s f u l a p p l i c a t i o n s of the method.
where f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i s necessary are mentioned.
The
areas
14
CHAPTER 2
2.1
SUBSTITUTE STRUCTURE METHOD
Modal A n a l y s i s
Modal a n a l y s i s i s an approximate
dynamic a n a l y s i s t o s o l v e
the response o f a multi-degrees-of-freedom

earthquake
motion.
t i c systems,
system t o a given
Although i t i s intended f o r a n a l y s i s o f e l a s -
a thorough knowledge o f t h i s method i s e s s e n t i a l f o r
the d i s c u s s i o n o f the subsequent
sections.
Since i t i s not the
i n t e n t i o n o f t h i s paper t o e x p l a i n the dynamics o f s t r u c t u r e s

s u b j e c t e d t o the earthquake
brief.
(a)
motion,
The s u b j e c t i s covered i n Clough and Penzien.
Equation o f Motion
The b a s i c equation o f motion
system
the d i s c u s s i o n i s kept very
f o r a multi-degrees-of-freedom
i s given by
[m] (ii) + [c] (u) + [k] (u) = -x[m] (I)
where
[m] = mass matrix

[c] = damping m a t r i x
[k] = s t i f f n e s s m a t r i x
(ii) , (u) , (u) = a c c e l e r a t i o n , v e l o c i t y , and
displacement
corresponding
to each degree o f freedom.
(2.1)
15
x
= ground a c c e l e r a t i o n
(I) = i d e n t i t y v e c t o r where every e n t r y

i s a unity
The mass o f the system i s u s u a l l y lumped a t the modes f o r
s i m p l i c i t y i n computation.
I f such an assumption i s made, the
mass m a t r i x becomes d i a g o n a l . ,
D i s c u s s i o n o f the damping m a t r i x i s beyond the scope o f
t h i s paper.
Modal a n a l y s i s does not r e q u i r e an e v a l u a t i o n o f
t h i s m a t r i x , although the damping value i n each mode i s r e q u i r e d

f o r s y n t h e s i s o f the r e s u l t s .
The s t i f f n e s s m a t r i x i s formed by assembling the member
s t i f f n e s s matrices.
analysis.
The procedure i s i d e n t i c a l t o t h a t o f frame
The f u l l member m a t r i x w i t h three degrees o f freedom
at each member end i s 6 x 6.
I f only bending deformation i s o f
i n t e r e s t , i t s s i z e i s reduced t o 4 x 4.
(b)
P e r i o d s and Mode Shapes

S o l u t i o n o f the f r e e , undamped system y i e l d s mode shapes
and n a t u r a l f r e q u e n c i e s .
The e q u a t i o n o f motion becomes,
[m] (ii) + [k] Cu) = CO)
(2.2)
The s o l u t i o n t o t h i s equation i s o f the form,
(2.3)
(u) = (A) s i n a)t

with
Cu)
-ca
(A) s i n
031
(2.4)
16
S u b s t i t u t e equations
(2.3) and (2.4) i n t o
(2.2),
(2.5)
-a) [m] (A) + [k] (A) = (0)

2
For a n o n t r i v i a l
[k] -
solution,
OJ
(2.6)
[m] | = 0
T h i s i s an eigenvalue problem
o f the form,
(2.7)
[B] = X[C]
i n which
[B] i s a symmetric,
banded m a t r i c and fC] i s a d i a g o n a l
matrix.
Eigenvalues a s s o c i a t e d w i t h equation
(2.6) correspond
to the squares o f the angular f r e q u e n c i e s , w .

2
e i g e n v e c t o r s correspond t o the mode shapes.

the mass m a t r i x ,
Associated
I f n i s the rank o f
[m], there are n n a t u r a l f r e q u e n c i e s and n mode
shapes.
(c)
Response S p e c t r a
Given an earthquake
compute the response
r e c o r d , i t i s r e l a t i v e l y simple t o
spectra.
The peak a c c e l e r a t i o n ,
velocity,
or displacement o f a s i n g l e - d e g r e e - o f - f r e e d o m system w i t h a
given value can be determined
from the response
modal a n a l y s i s o f multi-degree-of-freedom
assumption
response
spectra.
systems,
In the
w i t h the
t h a t a damping r a t i o f o r each mode i s known, a peak
f o r each mode can be read from the response s p e c t r a
when n a t u r a l p e r i o d s a r e known.
When a damping r a t i o i s s m a l l ,
17
with l i t t l e
e r r o r the peak a c c e l e r a t i o n , v e l o c i t y , and d i s -
placement a r e r e l a t e d i n the f o l l o w i n g manner,
Where
&
= peak a c c e l e r a t i o n c o r r e s p o n d i n g to the n a t u r a l
frequency, oi.
= peak v e l o c i t y
S^ = peak displacement.
The c h o i c e o f a damping r a t i o l e a v e s some room f o r a
debate.
I t i s generally
taken t o be 5 t o 10% o f c r i t i c a l f o r
c o n c r e t e and 2 t o 5% o f c r i t i c a l
for steel.
S t r i c t l y speaking, the response

earthquake
spectra
a r e v a l i d f o r one
o f known peak ground a c c e l e r a t i o n , b u t they can be
s c a l e d up o r down depending on the peak ground a c c e l e r a t i o n

which i s a p p r o p r i a t e f o r a p a r t i c u l a r s i t e w i t h c e r t a i n assumpt i o n s on magnitude and p r o b a b i l i t y o f o c c u r r e n c e .
Cd)
Modal Forces
Suppose t h a t the a c c e l e r a t i o n
spectrum
i s given and t h a t
the damping r a t i o s f o r a l l the modes are know o r estimated; then,

it
i s a r e l a t i v e l y simple t o s e t up a f o r c e v e c t o r corresponding
to each mode.
computed.
vector.
Modal p a r t i c i p a t i o n f a c t o r s , a, must f i r s t be
L e t r denote the r t h mode and T the transpose o f a

The modal p a r t i c i p a t i o n f a c t o r f o r the r t h mode can
be computed as f o l l o w s ,
18
CA ) [m] (T)
r
(A ) [m](A )
where
(2.10)
(A ) = a v e c t o r r e p r e s e n t i n g the mode shape f o r

the r t h mode
[m]
= mass m a t r i x
(I)
= i d e n t i t y v e c t o r whose elements
are a l l u n i t y .
Then the f o r c e v e c t o r f o r the r t h mode becomes
( F ) = (A )a S^[m]
r
(2.11)
where
(F ) = f o r c e v e c t o r
S
= peak a c c e l e r a t i o n c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o r t h mode
&
n a t u r a l frequency and damping.

The modal displacements and response
f o r c e s can be computed
i n the i d e n t i c a l manner t o t h a t used i n the s t i f f n e s s method i n

a plane frame a n a l y s i s .
That i s ,
( F ) = [k] (A )
r
where
(2.12)
[k] = s t r u c t u r e s t i f f n e s s matrix
(A ) = modal displacements i n g l o b a l c o o r d i n a t e s ,
r
With
(F ) known, ( A ) can be computed by simply i n v e r t i n g the
s t i f f n e s s matrix,
[k].
The member f o r c e s can be c a l c u l a t e d
from the displacement v e c t o r , (A ) .

(e)
Combination
o f Forces and Displacements
These f o r c e s and displacements f o r each mode correspond t o

the peak response.
I t i s n o t l i k e l y t h a t these i n d i v i d u a l maxima
19
occur a t the same time; t h e r e f o r e , summing up the a b s o l u t e
v a l u e s o f these f o r c e s and displacements may r e s u l t i n overe s t i m a t i n g the response.
(RSS)
approach
I t i s found t h a t the
root-sum-square
g i v e s a more reasonable estimate.
The i n d i v i d u a l
modal responses a r e combined by t a k i n g the square r o o t o f the

sum o f the squares o f the responses.
C o n t r i b u t i o n s from the h i g h e r modes d i m i n i s h very
For
rapidly.
t h i s reason i t i s u s u a l l y s u f f i c i e n t t o take the f i r s t three
or f o u r modes f o r computation.
F o r l o w - r i s e s t r u c t u r e s o n l y the
f i r s t mode i s s u f f i c i e n t f o r a l l the p r a c t i c a l purposes.
For
h i g h - r i s e s t r u c t u r e s h i g h e r modes p l a y more dominant r o l e s , and,

hence, cannot be n e g l e c t e d .
20
2.2
(a)
Development
Gulkan and Sozen performed a s e r i e s o f experiments t o t e s t
the response of r e i n f o r c e d concrete s t r u c t u r e s to s e i s m i c

g
motions.
The t e s t s were r e s t r i c t e d to the s i n g l e - d e g r e e - o f -
freedom system.
They found t h a t the b a s i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f
r e i n f o r c e d concrete s t r u c t u r e which determine the response to

earthquakes are a change i n s t i f f n e s s and a change i n energy
d i s s i p a t i o n c a p a c i t y , both of which are r e l a t e d t o the maximum
displacement.
During s t r o n g motions the s t i f f n e s s of r e i n f o r c e d
c o n c r e t e decreases because o f c r a c k i n g o f c o n c r e t e , s p a l l i n g o f
concrete, and s l i p p i n g and r e d u c t i o n i n e f f e c t i v e modulus o f
steel.
The r e s u l t o f t h i s i s t h a t the p e r i o d of the s t r u c t u r e
i n c r e a s e s as i t undergoes
i n e l a s t i c deformation.
The a r e a
w i t h i n a c y c l e o f the f o r c e - d i s p l a c e m e n t curve i s a measure o f

the energy d i s s i p a t e d by the system.
They found t h a t the a r e a
w i t h i n the h y s t e r e t i c loop i n c r e a s e s w i t h i n c r e a s e i n d i s p l a c e ment i n t o the i n e l a s t i c range o f response.

The e f f e c t of the h y s t e r e s i s loop and the change i n s t i f f ness i s s a i d t o l e a d to a q u a n t i t a t i v e , r e l a t i o n s h i p between
l i n e a r response a n a l y s i s and i n e l a s t i c a n a l y s i s .
A concept o f
s u b s t i t u t e damping and e f f e c t i v e s t i f f n e s s are then i n t r o d u c e d

i n order t o i n t e r p r e t the i n e l a s t i c response i n terms o f a l i n e a r
response a n a l y s i s , u s i n g a s p e c t r a l response curve.
Consider an i d e a l i z e d symmetrical h y s t e r e s i s loop as shown
i n F i g . 2.1.
I t f o l l o w s Takeda s h y s t e r e s i s loop which was
9
used as an a n a l y t i c a l model i n the experiment by Takeda e t a l .
1
I t i s assumed t h a t the s t r u c t u r e has a l r e a d y undergone s e v e r a l

Let y be the o r i g i n a l
c y c l e s of i n e l a s t i c deformation.
then the slope of the unloading curve BC,

d u c t i l i t y and a i s a c o n s t a n t .
i s Y[)
stiffness;
where n i s the
The shape of the h y s t e r e s i s
curve i s such t h a t i t i s approximately r e p r e s e n t e d by a l i n e a r l y

v i b r a t i n g system w i t h e q u i v a l e n t v i s c o u s damping."^
t h a t the energy
i n p u t i s e n t i r e l y d i s s i p a t e d by an
I t i s assumed
imaginary
v i s c o u s damper a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the h o r i z o n t a l v e l o c i t y of the

mass.
Using t h i s i d e a , the s u b s t i t u t e damping r a t i o ,
i s given
by,
where
2mto / ^ ( u ) d t
o u
2
= -m/^
x u dt
(2.13)
m = mass
u = velocity
x = ground a c c e l e r a t i o n
T = p e r i o d of v i b r a t i o n
to = measured a b s o l u t e a c c e l e r a t i o n / m e a s u r e d
o
2
absolute
displacement.
The l e f t - h a n d s i d e of the equation r e p r e s e n t s the energy

pated per c y c l e and the r i g h t - h a n d s i d e r e p r e s e n t s the
input per c y c l e .
On the h y s t e r e s i s loop diagram
dissi-
energy
i t can be
seen
that
^ area EBC
area ABF
a i s taken as 0.5,
_ 1/2
1/2
( h y s t e r e s i s loop area)
(energy input)
then i t can be shown t h a t
(2.14)
22
(1
where
(2.15)
l/v^T)
= ductility.
From the .experimental data Gulkan and Sozen
gave the f o l l o w i n g
B,
e x p r e s s i o n f o r the s u b s t i t u t e damping r a t i o ,
(2.16)
I t i s assumed i n equation
of 0.02
at
=1.0.
The
(2.16) t h a t B
slope of the l i n e AE i s the
s t i f f n e s s and i s equal to y / n .
to the e f f e c t i v e s t i f f n e s s i s
Gulkan and Sozen
has a t h r e s h h o l d value
effective
The n a t u r a l p e r i o d corresponding
T/n
proposed
a design procedure
for a rein-
f o r c e d concrete s t r u c t u r e which can be i d e a l i z e d as a s i n g l e degree-of-freedom
system.
The d e s i g n base shear can be
calcula-
t e d as f o l l o w s :
(1)
assume an a d m i s s i b l e value of d u c t i l i t y , ri ,
(2)
c a l c u l a t e the s t i f f n e s s based on the cracked
(3)
determine
(4)
c a l c u l a t e the s u b s t i t u t e damping r a t i o ,
section,
the n a t u r a l p e r i o d , T,
B,
g
corresponding
to the assumed value of d u c t i l i t y , n ,

(5)
o b t a i n base shear and maximum displacement by e n t e r i n g a

s p e c t r a l response
diagram w i t h an i n c r e a s e d n a t u r a l p e r i o d
of T >^T and a damping r a t i o equal t o

Even though t h i s design procedure
degree-of-freedom
B.
g
i s intended f o r a s i n g l e -
system, the b a s i c concepts
are d i r e c t l y
t r a n s f e r r e d t o the s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method, which i s a

design method f o r m u l t i - s t o r y r e i n f o r c e d concrete
frames.
23
(b)
The s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method was c o n c e i v e d by Shbata and
Sozen.
I t i s an e x t e n s i o n o f the method by Gulkan and Sozen
which was d e s c r i b e d i n the p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n .
The method i s
intended f o r m u l t i - s t o r y r e i n f o r c e d c o n c r e t e frames and i s a

design procedure t o e s t a b l i s h the minimum s t r e n g t h s t h a t the
components must have so t h a t a t o l e r a b l e response displacement i s
not l i k e l y to be exceeded.
The main c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the sub-
s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method are the d e f i n i t i o n o f a s u b s t i t u t e

frame, which i s a f i c t i t i o u s
frame w i t h i t s s t i f f n e s s and damping
d i f f e r i n g from the a c t u a l frame, and the c a l c u l a t i o n of the

design f o r c e s from modal a n a l y s i s o f the s u b s t i t u t e frame u s i n g
a l i n e a r response spectrum.
These c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e chosen
such that the f o r c e s and the deformations from the a n a l y s i s agree

w i t h these from the n o n l i n e a r dynamic
5
S h i b a t a and Sozen
analysis.
l i s t the f o l l o w i n g c o n d i t i o n s which must
be s a t i s f i e d i n order t o use the s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method.

(1)
The system can be analyzed i n one v e r t i c a l p l a n e .
(2)
There are no abrupt changes i n geometry o r mass along the

h e i g h t o f the system.
(3)
Columns, beams and w a l l s may be designed w i t h d i f f e r e n t

l i m i t s o f i n e l a s t i c response, but the l i m i t should be the
same f o r a l l beams i n a given bay and a l l columns on a
given a x i s .
(4)
A l l s t r u c t u r a l elements and j o i n t s a r e r e i n f o r c e d t o a v o i d
s i g n i f i c a n t s t r e n g t h decay as a r e s u l t o f repeated r e v e r s a l s o f the a n t i c i p a t e d i n e l a s t i c d i s p l a c e m e n t s .
(5)
N o n s t r u c t u r a l components do not i n t e r f e r e w i t h s t r u c t u r a l
response.
The
first
c o n d i t i o n i m p l i e s t h a t the method i s s u b j e c t
the l i m i t a t i o n s of plane frame a n a l y s i s .

and b i a x i a l bending must be n e g l e c t e d .
Such e f f e c t s as t o r s i o n
The
second c o n d i t i o n
r e s t r i c t s the use of t h i s method to s t r u c t u r e s of r e g u l a r

w i t h uniform d i s t r i b u t i o n of mass and
d i t i o n deserves the most a t t e n t i o n .
columns may
big
stiffness.
The
The
third-con-
f a c t t h a t the beams and
method i n which the
t i l i t y of the e n t i r e s t r u c t u r e must be chosen to be

T h i s p o i n t i s perhaps the b i g g e s t
t u t e s t r u c t u r e method.
beams to y i e l d and
remain e l a s t i c .
s t o r y frames.
The
advantage i n u s i n g the s u b s t i -
absorb the b u l k of energy w h i l e the
The
duc-
uniform.
I t i s u s u a l l y d e s i r a b l e to allow
the
columns
t h i r d c o n d i t i o n does, however, exclude
p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h i s method may
conditions
Before the design
be used f o r the design
(4) and
(5) need l i t t l e
of s o f t
explanation.
As mentioned p r e v i o u s l y ,
s u b s t i t u t e frame i s a f i c t i t i o u s frame w i t h i t s s t i f f n e s s
damping r e l a t e d but not
the
procedure i s presented, terms p a r t i c u l a r
to t h i s method must be e x p l a i n e d .
i d e n t i c a l t o the a c t u a l frame.
i s used i n s t e a d of d u c t i l i t y ,
n.
and
A damage
Consider a f o r c e -
displacement curve or a moment-rotation curve as i n F i g .

Ductility
shapes
have d i f f e r e n t i n e l a s t i c deformation l i m i t s i s a
step forward from the c o n v e n t i o n a l
ratio, u,
to
i s u s u a l l y d e f i n e d as the r a t i o of u l t i m a t e
2.2.
displace-
ment to y i e l d displacement, or
n =
The
damage r a t i o on the other
(2.17)
hand i s the r a t i o of the
s t i f f n e s s of the s u b s t i t u t e frame, or
initial
25
slope AB
slope AC
=
H
They are i d e n t i c a l f o r the e l a s t o - p l a s t i c
case, but i f the s t i f f -
ness a f t e r y i e l d has a p o s i t i v e s l o p e , the damage r a t i o i s always

s m a l l e r than d u c t i l i t y .
Suppose s i s the r a t i o o f the s t i f f n e s s
a f t e r y i e l d to the i n i t i a l
s t i f f n e s s ; t h a t i s , the r a t i o of the
slope o f BC t o the slope o f AB i n F i g . 2.2.
Then the r e l a t i o n
between the damage r a t i o and d u c t i l i t y i s
(2.19)
1 + (n - l ) s
where
u = damage r a t i o
ri = d u c t i l i t y
s = r a t i o of s t i f f n e s s after y i e l d to i n i t i a l
stiffness
A s u b s t i t u t e damping r a t i o i s d e f i n e d and computed i n an i d e n t i cal
manner t o t h a t d e s c r i b e d i n the p r e v i o u s
section.
The damage
r a t i o , however, i s used i n s t e a d o f d u c t i l i t y ; hence,
= 0.2(1 - l//y") + 0.02
B = s u b s t i t u t e damping
s
where
y
The
(2.20)
ratio
= damage r a t i o .
design procedure w i l l now be d e s c r i b e d
necessary
assumption i s t h a t the p r e l i m i n a r y member s i z e s o f the a c t u a l

s t r u c t u r e are known from g r a v i t y loads and other f u n c t i o n a l
requirements.
(1)
Then the f o l l o w i n g steps are i n v o l v e d .
Assume an a c c e p t a b l e
group o f members.
value o f damage r a t i o , u, f o r each
(2)
Define the f l e x u r a l s t i f f n e s s of s u b s t i t u t e - f r a m e
elements
as
CEI)
where
s i
a
u
(2.21)
(EI) . = f l e x u r a l
si
s t i f f n e s s of i th
substitute-frame
element
(EI)
. = flexural
ai
s t i f f n e s s o f i t h element i n the
a c t u a l frame
u.
*i
(3)
= t o l e r a b l e damage r a t i o f o r i t h element.
Compute n a t u r a l p e r i o d s ,
the undamped s u b s t i t u t e
(4)
mode shapes and modal f o r c e s f o r

structure.
Compute an average o r a "smeared" damping r a t i o f o r each

mode.
s i
= 0.2(1 - l / / y )
i
+ 0.02
^m
=\T^
^si
i i
where
P.
l
and
6 . = s u b s t i t u t e dampinq r a t i o o f i t h member
si
L.
<- >
2
(M . + M . + M . R . )
ai
D I
a i r>i
2
6 (EI)
.
si
>
= smeared s u b s t i t u t e damping f o r m t h mode
P^
= flexural
(2.22)
23
(2.24)
s t r a i n energy i n i t h element i n the
m t h mode
= length o f frame element i
(EI)
. = assumed
si
s t i f f n e s s o f s u b s t i t u t e frame element
M ., M, . = end moments of s u b s t i t u t e frame element i

ai
bi
f o r m t h mode.
(5)
Repeat the modal a n a l y s i s u s i n g the smeared damping

and compute the root-sum-square
(6)
Compute the design
where
= F
.v
ratios
(RSS) f o r c e s .
forces,
rss
i rss
2v
+, v ,
abs
rss
= design f o r c e f o r i t h element
F.
= root-sum-square f o r c e s f o r i t h element
1 rss
^
v
rss
v ,
abs
= RSS base shear

= maximum value f o r a b s o l u t e sum o f any two
J
of the modal base shears.

(7)
To avoid the r i s k o f e x c e s s i v e i n e l a s t i c a c t i o n i n the

columns i n c r e a s e the design moments o f the columns by 20%.
In the f i r s t step a designer can choose how much i n e l a s t i c
deformation can be allowed i n each element group.
Since the
t a r g e t damage r a t i o s are always g r e a t e r than o r equal t o one, i t

i s c l e a r i n the second step t h a t the n a t u r a l p e r i o d s o f the subs t i t u t e frame a r e always g r e a t e r than these o f the a c t u a l frame.
Steps 3 and 4 a r e necessary, because s u b s t i t u t e damping
may be d i f f e r e n t f o r each element group.
i s computed
ratios
A smeared damping
ratio
f o r each mode by assuming t h a t each element c o n t r i -
butes t o modal damping
i n proportion to i t s r e l a t i v e
s t r a i n energy a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the mode shape.
flexural
Elements w i t h
complex s t i f f n e s s can be used t o compute the smeared
damping
r a t i o s , but the f l e x u r a l energy approach i s e a s i e r t o use and has

more p h y s i c a l meaning.
The s i x t h step i s an e x t r a f a c t o r o f
28
s a f e t y i n case any
results.
The
combination of two
modes produces
undesirable
l a s t step i s d e s i r a b l e i n a design procedure,
because f a i l u r e i n a column p r i o r to f a i l u r e i n a d j o i n i n g beams

may
l e a d to c a t a s t r o p h i c
f a i l u r e of a structure.
A linear
response spectrum i s used i n the a n a l y s i s ; the authors suggest

t h a t a smoothed spectrum be used.
I t i s mentioned as a
critical
f e a t u r e of t h i s method t h a t i t becomes p l a u s i b l e only w i t h

understanding t h a t the
f o r c e response decreases as the
becomes more f l e x i b l e ; t h e r e f o r e ,
r e l a t i o n to the n a t u r a l p e r i o d s
the
structure
the smoothed spectrum, i n
o f the
substitute
structure,
should have a shape such t h a t the s p e c t r a l a c c e l e r a t i o n response

decreases w i t h an i n c r e a s e
i n period.
I m p l i c i t assumptions and
s t r u c t u r e method are now
l i m i t a t i o n of the
discussed.
substitute
It is implicitly
t h a t the moment d i s t r i b u t i o n i n a l l the members are

t h a t the p o i n t s of i n f l e c t i o n are p l a c e d
p o i n t s of the member spans.
assumed
l i n e a r and
a t or near the mid-
With these assumptions, i t becomes
c l e a r t h a t the shape of f o r c e - d i s p l a c e m e n t curve i s i d e n t i c a l t o

t h a t o f the moment-rotation curve.
Otherwise d i v i d i n g the
a c t u a l f l e x u r a l s t i f f n e s s by the damage r a t i o g r e a t e r
than
may
reasonable
not be a c o r r e c t approach.
These assumptions are
i n beams which are more l i k e l y to r e c e i v e

but
they may
not be
inelastic
one
deformations
so v a l i d i n columns as shown by Blume et a l .
T h i s p o i n t , however, i s not an important f a c t o r as long
as
columns are designed w i t h a t a r g e t damage r a t i o of one,
which
i s d e s i r a b l e i n most p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n s .
In p r a c t i c e , unless
the design moments are known, the
s t i f f n e s s of a f u l l y cracked s e c t i o n t h a t must be
used to
c a l c u l a t e the s t i f f n e s s o f the s u b s t i t u t e frame cannot be d e t e r mined.
An educated guess i s r e q u i r e d and at the end o f the
c a l c u l a t i o n s , i t must be checked t h a t the guess was indeed

reasonable.
The design moments correspond to e x t r a moment
c a p a c i t i e s r e q u i r e d over the c a p a c i t i e s f o r the g r a v i t y

Two ends o f a member must be capable o f h a n d l i n g
moment both i n p o s i t i v e and negative
ment again
directions.
loads.
the same design

This
require-
i s reasonable f o r beams, b u t may not be so f o r
columns.
The
authors designed the t e s t frames u s i n g the s u b s t i t u t e
s t r u c t u r e method.
These t e s t frames were s u b j e c t e d
to nonlinear
time-step a n a l y s i s , and they s t a t e t h a t the frames behaved w e l l

and
t h a t i n e l a s t i c deformation occurred
a t the p r e s c r i b e d
loca-
tions .
(c)
Computer Program
Use
o f a computer i s almost as e s s e n t i a l i n the s u b s t i t u t e
s t r u c t u r e method, as i t i s i n the case o f r e g u l a r modal a n a l y s i s .

A flow diagram i s shown i n F i g . 2.3.
are r e q u i r e d t o convert
Only minor
modifications
an e x i s t i n g modal a n a l y s i s program t o
be used f o r the s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method.

A t a r g e t damage r a t i o f o r each member must be read
s t o r e d when s t r u c t u r a l data are read
in.
i n and
A t t h i s stage i t may
be advantageous t o compute and s t o r e a s u b s t i t u t e damping r a t i o

f o r each member.
When the s t r u c t u r e s t i f f n e s s m a t r i x i s
assembled from member s t i f f n e s s m a t r i c e s ,
f l e x u r a l components o f
the member s t i f f n e s s m a t r i x must be d i v i d e d by the a p p r o p r i a t e

t a r g e t damage r a t i o .
The s t r u c t u r e s t i f f n e s s m a t r i x becomes
30
t h a t o f the s u b s t i t u t e frame, and t h i s m a t r i x i s used t o compute
n a t u r a l p e r i o d s and a s s o c i a t e d mode shapes.
C a l c u l a t i o n s o f modal responses a r e performed twice:
the
first
on
c y c l e modal f o r c e s are computed f o r the undamped sub-
s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e ; f l e x u r a l s t r a i n energy f o r each member i s

computed and s t o r e d f o r each mode.
A smeared
damping r a t i o f o r
each mode i s computed a c c o r d i n g t o equation (2.23).

smeared
With the
damping known the computation o f modal f o r c e s and d i s -
placements a r e repeated.
Root-sum-square f o r c e s and d i s p l a c e -
ments are computed on the second c y c l e , but s t r a i n energy

c a l c u l a t i o n s a r e not r e q u i r e d .
From the modal base shears RSS
base shear and the maximum v a l u e o f the a b s o l u t e sum o f any two

of
t h e modal base shears must be computed.
To compute t h e
design f o r c e s the RSS f o r c e s are m u l t i p l i e d by the f a c t o r i n

equation
(2.25).
Furthermore, the column moments must be
i n c r e a s e d by 20%.
If
a l i n e a r response spectrum i s chosen as was suggested

5
by S h i b a t a and Sozen,
only one i n v e r s i o n o f the s t r u c t u r e
ness m a t r i x i s necessary.
The program
stiff-
i s a very e f f i c i e n t one
that r e q u i r e s s m a l l storage and l i t t l e CPU time.
I f a regular
plane frame a n a l y s i s program i s t o be converted, s u b r o u t i n e s

for
setup o f mass m a t r i x , response spectrum, and computation o f
n a t u r a l p e r i o d s , mode shapes, and modal p a r t i c i p a t i o n

must be added.
factors
2.3
Examples
and Observations
(a)
Frames w i t h F l e x i b l e Beams
In o r d e r to t e s t the computer
program
f o r the
substitute
5
s t r u c t u r e method, sample
frames from S h i b a t a and Sozen's
were chosen and the r e s u l t s were compared w i t h t h e i r s .

frames are 3-, 5-, and 1 0 - s t o r i e s
paper
The
h i g h and they c o n s i s t of
stiff
columns and f l e x i b l e beams.

The data f o r the three frames are shown i n F i g . 2.4.
width i n each case was
The
24 f e e t and the s t o r y h e i g h t was u n i f o r m
at 11 f e e t w i t h a weight o f 72 k i p s c o n c e n t r a t e d a t each s t o r y .
The t a r g e t damage r a t i o s were one f o r columns and s i x f o r beams
i n a l l three frames.
Since the moments o f i n e r t i a o f the c r a c k e d
s e c t i o n s were not known, the assumptions made by S h i b a t a and

5
Sozen were repeated; t h a t i s , 1/3 o f moment o f i n e r t i a o f the
gross s e c t i o n was used f o r beams and 1/2 f o r the columns.
The
5
desxgn spectrum A i n t h e i r paper
acceleration
spectrum d e r i v e d
was used
( F i g . 2.5).
I t i s an
from l i n e a r response s p e c t r a
of s i x
earthquake motions; namely, two components o f E l Centro 1940,
two
components o f T a f t 19 52, and two components o f Managua 19 72.
The
peak ground a c c e l e r a t i o n was n o r m a l i z e d at 0.5

t h a t the d e s i g n response a c c e l e r a t i o n
I t was
assumed
f o r any damping f a c t o r ,
c o u l d be r e l a t e d to the response f o r B = 0.02

Response a c c e l e r a t i o n , f o r B
Response a c c e l e r a t i o n f o r B = 0.02
The n a t u r a l p e r i o d s and smeared
g.
8,
by using,
8
6 + 100
,
U.^b;
damping f a c t o r s of the
t h r e e frames are l i s t e d i n Table 2.1

Sozen's r e s u l t s .
along w i t h S h i b a t a and
The design moments are shown on F i g . 2.4.
The
design moments f o r the 3-story frame agreed w i t h those given by

5
Shibata and Sozen.
The design moments f o r 5- and
frames were not shown i n the paper.
One
may
10-story
conclude t h a t the
program was
capable of r e p r o d u c i n g the r e s u l t s shown i n S h i b a t a

5
and Sozen's paper.
The three frames were then t e s t e d i n a s i m i l a r f a s h i o n t o
5
t h a t employed by S h i b a t a and Sozen.
An i n e l a s t i c dynamic program,
12
SAKE,
was
earthquake
used t o compute the response

motions.
T h i s program was
s e l e c t e d , because i t was
w r i t t e n e x c l u s i v e l y f o r concrete frames.
13
r e p o r t e d by Otani and Sozen.
quake was
I t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s was
A r e c o r d of Managua 19 72 e a r t h -
not a v a i l a b l e ; t h e r e f o r e , two
19 40 and two
h i s t o r y of each frame to
components of E l Centro
components of T a f t 19 52 were used.
These a c c e l e r a -
t i o n records were normalized so t h a t the peak ground a c c e l e r a t i o n

was
0.5
g i n a l l four records.
design moments.
initial
The y i e l d moments were s e t a t the
S t i f f n e s s beyond y i e l d was
stiffness.
The damping was
taken as 3% o f the
taken to be p r o p o r t i o n a l t o
s t i f f n e s s , corresponding to 2% damping f o r the f i r s t mode.

puted damage r a t i o s of t h r e e frames are shown i n Table
Com-
2.2.
Comparison of some of the r e s u l t s w i t h those by S h i b a t a and

5
Sozen
i s shown i n Table
2.3.
The t h r e e - s t o r y frame behaved very w e l l .
None o f the
col-
umns y i e l d e d and the beam damage r a t i o s were s i x or l e s s i n a l l

f o u r earthquakes.
Thus the s t r u c t u r e designed by the
s t r u c t u r e method behaved as expected.

El
Centro EW
r e c o r d produced
substitute
In the f i v e - s t o r y
the worst r e s u l t .
The
frame,
columns
33
y i e l d e d a t three l o c a t i o n s and the damage r a t i o s of the beams,
except the f i r s t - f l o o r beam, were about seven.
The frame, how-
ever, behaved very w e l l i n the o t h e r three earthquake motions.

The columns remained i n the e l a s t i c range and the beam damage
r a t i o s were l e s s than f i v e .
The t e n - s t o r y frame produced the
worst r e s u l t s o f the three frames.
L i k e the f i v e - s t o r y
frame
E l Centro EW motion produced the most u n f a v o r a b l e r e s u l t s .

columns y i e l d e d a t many l o c a t i o n s .
The f i f t h
e x h i b i t e d a damage r a t i o o f about seven.
story
The
column
A l l the beams exceeded
the t a r g e t ^damage r a t i o o f s i x and some reached a damage r a t i o o f

about t e n .
quakes.
The r e s u l t s were much b e t t e r i n the other t h r e e e a r t h -
Although the columns y i e l d e d a t a few l o c a t i o n s i n two
earthquakes, i n e l a s t i c deformations were not e x c e s s i v e .
The beam
damage r a t i o s were a l l l e s s than s i x .

These r e s u l t s agreed q u a l i t a t i v e l y w i t h those by S h i b a t a and
Sozen, ~* but not q u a n t i t a t i v e l y
(Table 2.3).
The q u a n t i t a t i v e
d i f f e r e n c e was the s m a l l e s t f o r the t h r e e - s t o r y frame.
The b i g -
gest d i s c r e p a n c y o c c u r r e d i n the t e n - s t o r y frame, e s p e c i a l l y i n

E l Centro EW motion.
The d i f f e r e n c e may be due t o modeling o f
elements i n the n o n l i n e a r dynamic program,
d u r a t i o n of earthquake
motion, o r d i f f e r e n c e i n earthquake r e c o r d s caused by d i g i t i z a t i o n

o f the r e c o r d s o r f i l t e r i n g .
(b)
S o f t - S t o r y Frame
5
Shxbata and Sozen
r e s t r i c t e d a c h o i c e o f a t a r g e t damage
r a t i o f o r each element i n o r d e r t h a t the s u b s t i t u t e

method may be used s u c c e s s f u l l y .
structure
They s t a t e d t h a t columns, beams,
and w a l l s may be designed w i t h d i f f e r e n t t a r g e t damage r a t i o s
but
34
t h a t the t a r g e t damage r a t i o s should be the
a given bay
implies
the
and
a l l columns on a given a x i s -
t h a t a s o f t - s t o r y frame may
s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method.
order to check the n e c e s s i t y

Two
vious
Fig.
three-story
The
one
given
The
Two
examples were t e s t e d i n
was
a s s i g n e d to the
The
beams had
one
The
24-foot bay w i t h 11 f o o t s t o r y
3/4
The
design s p e c t r a
was
The
heights.
moment of
inertia
of t h a t of the columns above.
constant moment of i n e r t i a .
were then subjected
f i r s t - s t o r y columns
to the other beams.
The
computed by the s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method and

2.6.
A t a r g e t damage r a t i o of s i x
to the f i r s t - f l o o r beam and
s t o r y columns was
pre-
designed as a " s o f t s t o r y " .
t o the r e s t of columns.
first
used i n the
f i r s t example are shown i n
f l o o r weight i s 72 k i p s f o r each l e v e l .
of the
by
for this r e s t r i c t i o n .
ground f l o o r was
frame c o n s i s t s of one
condition
not be designed p r o p e r l y
Data f o r the
t a r g e t damage r a t i o of two
and
This
frames s i m i l a r t o the one
s e c t i o n were used.
2.6.
same f o r a l l beams i n
shown i n F i g . 2.5
design moments were

are shown i n F i g .
were used.
The
frames
to f o u r earthquake motions, u s i n g the
non-
12
l i n e a r dynamic a n a l y s i s program, SAKE.
Each earthquake
record
was
normalized so that the maximum ground a c c e l e r a t i o n was
The
design moments were used as the y i e l d moments.
s t i f f n e s s - p r o p o r t i o n a l damping and
assumed i n the n o n l i n e a r
shown i n F i g . 2.7.
designed t o :
El
the
The
analysis.
Two
0.5
per
g.
cent
3% s t r a i n hardening were
The
r e s u l t s of four runs
frame t r i e d to behave i n the way
are
i t was
f i r s t - s t o r y columns y i e l d e d i n a l l four cases.
Centro EW motion produced the worst r e s u l t ; the damage r a t i o
reached 2.8.
which was
1.2.
T a f t S69E motion produced the s m a l l e s t

The
damage r a t i o ,
r e s t of the columns remained e l a s t i c .
The
35
f i r s t - f l o o r beam y i e l d e d i n every case and the damage r a t i o
from
3.7
t o 6.1.
The
s e c o n d - f l o o r beam remained more or l e s s
e l a s t i c except f o r one case.

as w e l l as the other beams.
The t h i r d - f l o o r beam d i d not behave

I t y i e l d e d i n a l l four cases, but
the damage r a t i o s were l e s s than 1.5

Although
ranged
except i n E l Centro EW
motion.
the t e s t frame d i d not perform very w e l l d u r i n g E l Centro
EW motion, the r e s u l t s from other motions seem to i n d i c a t e t h a t

the s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method produced
a s u c c e s s f u l design o f a
s o f t s t o r y frame i n t h i s example.
In
first
The
the second example the s o f t s t o r y was
s t o r y t o the second
story.
same design spectrum was
method was
the
The data are shown i n F i g . 2.8.
used and the s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e
used t o compute the design moments.
moments are shown i n F i g . 2.8.

the four earthquake
moved from
The
frame was
Those design
again s u b j e c t e d t o
motions i n an i d e n t i c a l manner, w i t h the same
assumptions being made i n the n o n l i n e a r dynamic a n a l y s i s .

r e s u l t s are shown i n F i g . 2.9.
first
all
They were not as good as the
example, s i n c e the second-story columns remained e l a s t i c i n
four cases, although they were designed to y i e l d .
columns remained e s s e n t i a l l y e l a s t i c .
than the columns.
earthquake;
is
The second
The
other
The beams behaved b e t t e r
f l o o r beam d i d y i e l d i n every
w i t h the damage r a t i o ranging from 2.6
l e s s than the t a r g e t damage r a t i o of s i x .
e s s e n t i a l l y remained i n the e l a s t i c
(c)
The
t o 4.4
which
The o t h e r beams
range.

The r e s u l t s of the s o f t - s t o r y frames were i n c o n c l u s i v e .
The method worked w e l l i n the f i r s t
example, but o n l y a f a i r
36
r e s u l t was obtained
i n the second example.
A two-bay, t h r e e -
s t o r y frame was used t o t e s t whether the s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e

method c o u l d be used f o r a frame w i t h randomly assigned
damage r a t i o s .
target
The data f o r the s t r u c t u r e a r e shown i n F i g . 2.10.
The
design
spectrum was the same one used i n the p r e v i o u s
The
t a r g e t damage r a t i o s were randomly a s s i g n e d .
examples.
The s u b s t i t u t e
s t r u c t u r e was used t o compute the design moments, but the column

moments were not i n c r e a s e d by 20%, because they c o u l d y i e l d
before
the beams.
The
nonlinear
dynamic a n a l y s i s was c a r r i e d out i n an i d e n t -
i c a l manner as i n the previous

quake records
F i g . 2.11.
were used.
examples.
The same f o u r
earth-
The r e s u l t s o f four runs are shown i n
The s t r u c t u r e behaved q u i t e w e l l when the average
damage r a t i o s o f four earthquakes are compared w i t h the t a r g e t

E l Centro EW motion produced the b i g g e s t
w h i l e T a f t motions produced the l e a s t .
In g e n e r a l ,
damage
the bottom-
s t o r y columns r e c e i v e d more damage than they were expected t o

take, but the damage r a t i o s o f the second-story columns were
very
c l o s e t o the t a r g e t damage r a t i o s .
The t h i r d - s t o r y columns
were damaged l e s s s e v e r e l y than they were designed f o r .
The same
t r e n d i s found i n the beams, but none o f the average damage r a t i o s

were higher
The
than the t a r g e t damage r a t i o s .
r e s u l t s o f t h i s example seem t o i n d i c a t e t h a t the sub-
s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method can be used t o design
a structure i n
which d i f f e r e n t t a r g e t damage r a t i o s a r e assigned

the same bay and f o r columns on the same a x i s .
beams work b e t t e r than columns.
f o r beams i n
I t appears t h a t
37
2.4
Equal-Area S t i f f n e s s Method
(a)
Observation
As was d i s c u s s e d
i n the s e c t i o n 2.3(a), t h r e e
frames were
designed u s i n g the s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method and they were subjected to nonlinear

program was run,
were obtained
dynamic a n a l y s i s .
When the dynamic a n a l y s i s
t i m e - h i s t o r y p l o t s o f displacements and moments
as a p a r t o f the output.
Upon o b s e r v a t i o n
p l o t s i t was p o s s i b l e t o p i c k up the p e r i o d s
of these
o f the most dominant
v i b r a t i o n , and i t was found t h a t these p e r i o d s were p e c u l i a r t o

the frames, n o t t o the earthquake motions.
Furthermore, these
p e r i o d s were d i f f e r e n t from the n a t u r a l p e r i o d s
o f the a c t u a l
frames and from those o f the s u b s t i t u t e frames.

Table 2.4 l i s t s
and
the n a t u r a l p e r i o d s
o f the a c t u a l frames
s u b s t i t u t e frames f o r the f i r s t mode as w e l l as the observed
periods
served
from the dynamic a n a l y s e s .

p e r i o d s were longer
In a l l three cases the ob-
than the n a t u r a l p e r i o d s
frames, but s h o r t e r than the n a t u r a l p e r i o d s

frames.
o f the a c t u a l
o f the s u b s t i t u t e
T h i s seemed t o imply t h a t the s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e
method d i d not give the c o r r e c t n a t u r a l p e r i o d s

when i t underwent i n e l a s t i c
of a structure
deformation.
Some e f f o r t was made t o f i n d a method which would give a

b e t t e r estimate o f the n a t u r a l p e r i o d s
be
subjected
t o i n e l a s t i c deformation.
o f a s t r u c t u r e which would
T h i s was f e l t
t o be
important, s i n c e modal a n a l y s i s was t o be used, i n which the

response i s read a g a i n s t the p e r i o d .
38
(b)
Equal-Area
Stiffness
The p r e c e d i n g o b s e r v a t i o n supports the theory t h a t the

s t i f f n e s s o f a system i s reduced when i t i s s u b j e c t e d t o s t r o n g
motions
such t h a t i t s deformations exceed the e l a s t i c l i m i t .
At
the same time i t seems t o i n d i c a t e t h a t the s t i f f n e s s used i n the

s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method i s t o o s m a l l :
true e f f e c t i v e
stiff-
ness l i e s somewhere between the e l a s t i c s t i f f n e s s and the s t i f f ness o f the s u b s t i t u t e
structure.
Consider the l o a d - d e f l e c t i o n curve i n F i g . 2.12.

t h a t i t i s an e l a s t o - p l a s t i c
d u c t i l i t y a r e the same.
Assume
case so t h a t the damage r a t i o and
When a t a r g e t damage r a t i o i s chosen,
the maximum displacement i s i m p l i c i t l y s e l e c t e d .
The system i s
allowed t o undergo a deformation on the l o a d i n g curve up t o the

p o i n t C.
The area under the curve i s equal t o the area o f the
t r a p e z o i d ABCD.
I t i s p o s s i b l e t o make up a f i c t i t i o u s
elastic
system which reaches the same u l t i m a t e displacement and has the

same area under i t s l i n e a r
l o a d - d e f l e c t i o n curve AED as the area
of the b i l i n e a r curve ABCD, w h i l e both systems reach the same

u l t i m a t e displacement, A , and absorb the same energy o f d e f o r mation
F
i n doing so, the e l a s t o - p l a s t i c
system has the y i e l d
, as maximum f o r c e and the f i c t i t i o u s e l a s t i c system
force,
reaches
y
F^, which i s g r e a t e r than the y i e l d f o r c e .
The s l o p e o f the l i n e
AE i s the s t i f f n e s s o f t h i s e l a s t i c system, which the author c a l l s

an "equal-area s t i f f n e s s " .
area s t i f f n e s s
By equating the two areas, the e q u a l -
can be expressed i n terms o f the i n i t i a l
stiffness
and the t a r g e t damage r a t i o ,
li
z ;
(2.27)
39
where
= equal-area
stiffness
= inital
stiffness
= t a r g e t damage r a t i o .
The y i e l d f o r c e i s unknown, but i t i s expressed i n terms o f the

maximum f o r c e , F^,
where
= F_ (V
.}
1 2y - 1
= yield
*
(2.28)
force
F^ = maxium f o r c e
and
= t a r g e t damage r a t i o .
I f the moment-curvature curve o f an element has the same

shape as t h a t o f the l o a d - d e f l e c t i o n durve, the f l e x u r a l
stiff-
ness o f the element can be reduced a c c o r d i n g t o equation
(2.26).
This s t i f f n e s s
the system.
can be used t o s o l v e f o r the n a t u r a l p e r i o d s o f
T h i s approach
i s , o f course, very h y p o t h e t i c a l and
there i s no experimental data t o support i t .
The concept o f
s u b s t i t u t e damping l o s e s much o f i t s meaning, because i t was

derived
from the s i m p l i f i e d
forced concrete.
h y s t e r e s i s loop o f degraded
But t h i s h y p o t h e s i s can be t e s t e d
rein-
analytically
by modifying the s t i f f n e s s p a r t o f the s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e

program.
(c)
Examples
The same three frames used i n s e c t i o n 2.2(a) were used to
t e s t the equal-area s t i f f n e s s method.
The t a r g e t damage r a t i o s
were s e t a t one f o r the columns and s i x f o r the beams.

f l e x u r a l components o f the member s t i f f n e s s e s
When the
were assembled, they
40
were reduced
a c c o r d i n g to the equation
(EI)
(EI)
where
(EI)
(EI)
ex
that i s ,
2p. - 1
ax
equal-area
ex
(2.27);
(2.29)
. . .
s t i f f n e s s of element i
s t i f f n e s s of i th element of a c t u a l frame
ax
t a r g e t damage r a t i o of i t h element.
The n a t u r a l p e r i o d s of the three frames were computed u s i n g the
equal-area
stiffness.
The p e r i o d s corresponding
to the f i r s t mode
are l i s t e d on Table 2.4.
Those p e r i o d s agreed
very w e l l with
dominant p e r i o d s observed
i n the n o n l i n e a r a n a l y s i s .
the
Therefore,
as f a r as the n a t u r a l p e r i o d s are concerned, t h i s approach g i v e s

a more r e a l i s t i c
(d)
estimate.
Area f o r F u r t h e r
Studies
The design f o r c e s computed by the s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e

method were used as the y i e l d moments i n the n o n l i n e a r dynamic
analysis.
I f a method to o b t a i n the same design f o r c e s c o u l d be
developed,
t h i s equal-area
attractive.
An e f f o r t was
f o r c e s t h a t are s i m i l a r
method, but i t was
s t i f f n e s s method would become more

made to f i n d a way
t o those
to compute design
from the s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e
not p o s s i b l e to o b t a i n a s a t i s f a c t o r y
F u r t h e r s t u d i e s may
be worthwhile, because the agreement
i n p e r i o d s i s too good to i g n o r e .
Any
further research
be s t a r t e d w i t h a s i n g l e - d e g r e e - o f freedom system.
support t h i s hypothesis
result.
should
A theory to
needs to be e s t a b l i s h e d along
with
41
experimental data.
I f a l i n e a r response spectrum i s t o be used,
a new method o f computing

developed.
s u i t a b l e damping p r o p e r t i e s
must be
42
CHAPTER 3
3.1
M o d i f i e d S u b s t i t u t e S t r u c t u r e Method
The term,
"retrofit",
i s d e f i n e d i n the f i r s t
d e s c r i b e s the problem o f e v a l u a t i n g the performance

b u i l d i n g s a g a i n s t s e i s m i c hazards.
chapter.
It
of existing
A r e t r o f i t procedure i s , then,
a procedure f o r a n a l y z i n g e x i s t i n g b u i l d i n g s .
I t i s inevitable
t h a t almost a l l the s t r u c t u r e s y i e l d and s u f f e r i n e l a s t i c
deforma-
t i o n under a s t r o n g earthquake motion; such a procedure, t h e r e f o r e , must perform some s o r t o f i n e l a s t i c a n a l y s i s .
I t must be
capable o f i d e n t i f y i n g the l o c a t i o n s and e x t e n t o f damage a s s o c i a t e d with a p a r t i c u l a r earthquake motion.

fail,
I f a structure i s to
the mode o f f a i l u r e must be i d e n t i f i e d .
I t i s desirable
t h a t a method be f l e x i b l e enough t o handle earthquakes o f d i f f e r ent nature and magnitude.
A t the same time i t must be reasonably
economical and easy t o use i n o r d e r to become a p r a c t i c a l t o o l f o r

average e n g i n e e r s .
because
The use o f a computer i s probably i n e v i t a b l e
of the nature o f the problem, b u t a program t o run such
an a n a l y s i s must be easy to w r i t e and economical t o operate.

The m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method f u l f i l l s the
aforementioned requirements.
As the name suggests, i t was d e v e l 5
oped from the s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method by S h i b a t a and Sozen.

At present i t s use i s r e s t r i c t e d to r e i n f o r c e d c o n c r e t e s t r u c t u r e s
as i s the case f o r the s u b s t i t u t e

w i t h proper m o d i f i c a t i o n s
s t r u c t u r e method i t s e l f , but
the method may be used f o r a n a l y s i s o f
s t e e l and other s t r u c t u r e s .
I t i s a modified e l a s t i c analysis i n
which the s t i f f n e s s and damping p r o p e r t i e s
are changed f o r use
w i t h modal a n a l y s i s so that the f o r c e s and deformations agree

with nonlinear
A l i n e a r response spectrum i s
used t o compute the i n e l a s t i c response.
The concepts o f s u b s t i -
t u t e damping, damage r a t i o , and s u b s t i t u t e

from the s u b s t i t u t e
The
s t i f f n e s s are borrowed
d i f f e r e n c e between a design procedure and a r e t r o f i t
procedure i s worth n o t i n g .
In a seismic
i n i t i a l s t i f f n e s s o f the s t r u c t u r e
o t h e r requirements.
design procedure the
i s known approximately from
A d e s i g n e r can choose and s p e c i f y the amount
of i n e l a s t i c deformation each element i s allowed t o undergo i n a

given earthquake motion.
I t i s the design f o r c e s o r y i e l d
forces
t h a t must be determined.
In the s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method, the
s t i f f n e s s o f the a c t u a l frame i s known o r i t can be estimated

fairly
precisely.
by a d e s i g n e r .
Target damage r a t i o s a r e s e l e c t e d
Hence, the s u b s t i t u t e
s t i f f n e s s and s u b s t i t u t e
damping r a t i o s o f the elements are p r e s c r i b e d .

associated
be
f o r elements
Natural
periods,
mode shapes, and modal p a r t i c i p a t i o n f a c t o r s need to
computed only once.
A f t e r computation o f a smeared damping
r a t i o f o r each mode, modal f o r c e s are c a l c u l a t e d and combined as

specified.
No i t e r a t i o n i s r e q u i r e d
during
computation.
In a
r e t r o f i t procedure the i n i t i a l s t i f f n e s s and the y i e l d moments

and
other s t r e n g t h
properties
of a structure
are known o r they
can be found from design c a l c u l a t i o n s , drawings, and f i e l d

igations.
What i s known i s the amount o f i n e l a s t i c
invest-
deformation;
t h a t i s , the damage r a t i o f o r each member must be computed given

an earthquake
motion.
a s u i t a b l e combination
y i e l d forces.
In the m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method
of modal f o r c e s must agree with the known
To achieve t h i s the damage r a t i o s of a l l the
elements must be estimated p r e c i s e l y so t h a t c o r r e c t
substitute
s t i f f n e s s and s u b s t i t u t e damping r a t i o s can be used.
This, of
course, i s i m p o s s i b l e to do; otherwise t h e r e would be no need to

perform an a n a l y s i s .
I t i s , t h e r e f o r e , i n e v i t a b l e t h a t an
t i v e process must be used.
itera-
A f t e r each i t e r a t i o n damage r a t i o s
must be m o d i f i e d to approach nearer t o the c o r r e c t v a l u e s .

i s c e r t a i n l y a disadvantage, because more computations
q u i r e d and hence more c o s t s .
This
are r e -
But i f the number of i t e r a t i o n s are
s m a l l , i t i s s t i l l an economical
a l t e r n a t i v e t o f u l l - s c a l e non-
l i n e a r dynamic a n a l y s i s .
Before the procedure
f o r the m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e
method i s d e s c r i b e d i n d e t a i l , s e v e r a l c o n d i t i o n s are
listed.
They must be s a t i s f i e d i n order to apply the m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e

s t r u c t u r e method p r o p e r l y .
These c o n d i t i o n s a r e :
Cl)
the system can be analyzed i n one v e r t i c a l
plane,
(2)
there i s no abrupt change i n geometry and p r e f e r a b l y i n

mass along the h e i g h t of the system,
(3)
reinforcement of a l l members and j o i n t s are known such t h a t

t h e i r a b i l i t y t o withstand repeated r e v e r s a l s of
inelastic
deformation without s i g n i f i c a n t s t r e n g t h decay can

estimated,
(4)
be
and
n o n s t r u c t u r a l components do not i n t e r f e r e w i t h
structural
response.
The aforementioned
c o n d i t i o n s are s i m i l a r to those l i s t e d
by
45
Shibata
it
and Sozen
i n the s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method.
should be noted t h a t , a f t e r convergence, the f i n a l
of the m o d i f i e d
design
and
In f a c t ,
iteration
s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method i s i d e n t i c a l to the
procedure, and t h e r e f o r e has e x a c t l y the same r e s t r i c t i o n s
validity.
The
f o l l o w i n g i s the step-by-step d e s c r i p t i o n o f the proce-
dure f o r the m o d i f i e d
I t must be
remembered t h a t the y i e l d f o r c e cannot be exceeded a t any time.

CD
Perform a modal a n a l y s i s on the assumption o f e l a s t i c

behaviour.
Damping r a t i o s must be chosen so t h a t they are
appropriate
f o r the given earthquake.
Compute the r o o t -
sum-square (RSS) f o r c e s .
C2)
F i n d the members i n which RSS moments exceed the y i e l d

moments.
Note t h a t the b i g g e r
o f the two end moments i s
used.
C3)
In such members modify the damage r a t i o s a c c o r d i n g

formula t h a t w i l l be d e s c r i b e d
l a t e r on.
The other
t o the
members
w i l l have a damage r a t i o o f one.

C4)
Follow steps
(.2) t o C5) f o r the s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method
which was d e s c r i b e d
on pages 26 and 27 i n Chapter 2.2(b).
Compute the RSS moments.

(5)
Compare the RSS moments with the y i e l d moments.

damage r a t i o s
(6)
according
Repeat the steps
Modify the
t o the formula t o be d i s c u s s e d
later
(4) and (5) u n t i l a l l the computed moments,
except i n those members f o r which the damage r a t i o s are

one,
(7)
are equal t o the r e s p e c t i v e y i e l d moments.
The members i n which the damage r a t i o s are g r e a t e r

w i l l r e c e i v e i n e l a s t i c deformation.
than one
Check i f each member
46
can take such deformation.
It
I f not, such a member w i l l
fail.
i s now p o s s i b l e t o make an estimate o f the l o c a t i o n s and
extent o f damage i n the whole s t r u c t u r e .
S i m i l a r checks
can be made f o r other components o f i n t e r n a l
force.
An o r d i n a r y e l a s t i c modal a n a l y s i s i s performed i n the

f i r s t i t e r a t i o n , because a t t h i s stage i t i s not c l e a r i f a
s t r u c t u r e w i l l go through
quake.
critical
i n e l a s t i c deformations
i n a g i v e n earh-
A value f o r damping must be chosen; a r a t i o o f 10% o f

i s a p p r o p r i a t e f o r a r e i n f o r c e d concrete s t r u c t u r e sub-
j e c t e d to a strong earthquake motion.
Since i t i s i m p o s s i b l e to
exceed the y i e l d moments, those members i n which the computed

moments a r e g r e a t e r than t h e i r y i e l d moments w i l l y i e l d .
In the
t h i r d step the f i r s t estimate o f damage r a t i o s i s made.
Starting
from the second c y c l e o f i t e r a t i o n , the s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e

method i s used t o compute the n a t u r a l p e r i o d s , mode shapes, and
modal f o r c e s .
Damage r a t i o s c a l c u l a t e d a t the end o f the p r e v i o u s
i t e r a t i o n are used t o compute the s u b s t i t u t e s t i f f n e s s and subs t i t u t e damping r a t i o s .

throughout
The root-sum-square moments a r e used
the i t e r a t i o n s .
In the s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method
they were i n c r e a s e d a c c o r d i n g t o equation
(2.25) and the column
moments were f u r t h e r i n c r e a s e d by 20% t o o b t a i n the design moments.

T h i s approach i s acceptable i n a design procedure,
would provide an e x t r a margin o f s a f e t y .
because i t
But i n order t o be on
the c o n s e r v a t i v e s i d e i t i s a d v i s a b l e t o use the root-sum-square

moments and ignore the f a c t o r i n equation
(2.25) .
I n c r e a s i n g the
column moments by 20% here i s , o f course, t o t a l l y absurd.
Unless
c o r r e c t damage r a t i o s are o b t a i n e d i n the p r e v i o u s i t e r a t i o n , the

computed moments do not agree w i t h the y i e l d moments except f o r
47
the
members which remain e l a s t i c .
The damage r a t i o s
m o d i f i e d arid another i t e r a t i o n must be made.

the
A t some stage a l l
damage r a t i o s w i l l converge t o the c o r r e c t v a l u e s and the
i t e r a t i o n process w i l l be stopped.
Then an e v a l u a t i o n of the
performance of the s t r u c t u r e can be c a r r i e d

the
must be
l a s t step.
out as o u t l i n e d i n
I t must be noted t h a t the e f f e c t
of s t r a i n
hardening i s ignored i n the d i s c u s s i o n above, b u t i t can be

i n c l u d e d w i t h only a s l i g h t
It
ratios
modification.
i s now a p p r o p r i a t e t o e x p l a i n a way t o modify damage
a t the end o f each i t e r a t i o n .
case shown i n F i g . 3.1.
Consider the e l a s t o p l a s t i c
Suppose a t the end o f the f i r s t
itera-
t i o n , which i s an o r d i n a r y modal a n a l y s i s , the computed moment

which i s g r e a t e r than the y i e l d moment, M^.
was
Since the
member was assumed t o behave e l a s t i c a l l y , i t f o l l o w e d the l i n e

OA and reached the p o i n t B w i t h the moment, M^, and the r o t a t i o n ,
<J)^.
Since a computed moment cannot exceed M^, the s t i f f n e s s , k,
must be reduced i n the next i t e r a t i o n .

rotation,
cj>^, was c o r r e c t .
I t i s assumed t h a t the
A p o i n t B' i s l o c a t e d on the p l a s t i c
p a r t o f the moment-rotation curve and the slope o f the l i n e OB'

i s used as the s t i f f n e s s
f o r the next i t e r a t i o n .
r a t i o c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o t h i s new s t i f f n e s s
the
geometry.
The damage
can be c a l c u l a t e d from
The damage r a t i o a t the end o f the f i r s t
iteration
i s given by,
M.
y2
where
2
M.
> 1
(3.1)
damage r a t i o t o be used i n the second

computed moment i n the f i r s t
iteration
iteration
48
M
= y i e l d moment
Suppose t h a t a t the end o f the second i t e r a t i o n

moment, M ,
2
still
exceeded
the y i e l d moment, M ; t h a t i s , i t
reached the p o i n t C on the curve.

s t i f f n e s s was s t i l l
increased.
the computed
I t means t h a t the assumed
too b i g and t h a t the damage r a t i o must be
T h i s time a p o i n t C
slope of the l i n e OC
i s l o c a t e d on the curve and the
i s used t o d e f i n e the new s t i f f n e s s .
A new
damage r a t i o corresponding t o the new s t i f f n e s s can be o b t a i n e d

from the geometry.
M
1-U =
^3
(3.2)
M
y
where
damage r a t i o t o be used i n the t h i r d
1^2 = damage r a t i o used i n the second
iteration
iteration
= computed moment a t the end o f the second
itera-
tion
M = yield
y
It
i s p o s s i b l e t h a t the computed moment, M^, was l e s s
the y i e l d moment, M .
is,
moment.
The s t i f f n e s s must now be i n c r e a s e d ;
the damage r a t i o must be decreased.
than
that
The new damage r a t i o can
be computed from the geometry i n a s i m i l a r

t i o n as i n equation (3.2) can be o b t a i n e d .
way and the same r e l a A t t e n t i o n must be
p a i d t h i s time, s i n c e i f the new damage r a t i o i s l e s s than one,

i t must be s e t a t one.
In g e n e r a l , a t the end o f the n t h i t e r a t i o n
r a t i o can be computed by the f o l l o w i n g e q u a t i o n .
the new damage
49
n+l
M
... n
-C3.31
>1
M
y
u , . = damage r a t i o t o be used i n the n+l t h

n+l
where
iteration
y
= damage r a t i o used i n n t h i t e r a t i o n
= computed moment i n n t h i t e r a t i o n
= y i e l d moment.
y
If
V 2_
n+
equals y
f o r a l l the members, the i t e r a t i o n p r o c e s s i s
complete.
When the moment-rotation curve a f t e r y i e l d e x h i b i t s
hardening, the s i t u a t i o n
the
i s a l i t t l e more complex.
I f such i s
case, the y i e l d moment i s not the a b s o l u t e l i m i t .
The com-
puted moment can be and w i l l be g r e a t e r than the y i e l d

p r o v i d e d t h a t the damage r a t i o i s g r e a t e r than one.
of the formula f o r the new damage r a t i o s
strain
moment
Derivation
i s shown i n Appendix A.
It i s ,
n' n
M
(1 - s) + s.y .M
y
n n
M
where
n+l
>1
(3.4)
^n+l ~ m o d i f i e d damage r a t i o t o be used i n n+l t h

iteration
= damage r a t i o used i n n t h i t e r a t i o n
M
= computed moment i n n t h i t e r a t i o n
= y i e l d moment
y
= r a t i o of s t i f f n e s s
stiffness.
after
y i e l d to i n i t i a l
50
Inherent l i m i t a t i o n s o f the m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e
method are now d i s c u s s e d .
structure
The moment-rotation curve o f each
member must be such t h a t i t can be approximated by a b i l i n e a r

curve.
Furthermore, i t must have the same shape as t h a t o f the
l o a d - d e f l e c t i o n curve.
I f l i n e a r l y d i s t r i b u t e d moment w i t h a
p o i n t o f i n f l e c t i o n i n the mid-span
condition i s s a t i s f i e d .
o f a member i s assumed, t h i s
The moment c a p a c i t y o f each member i s
assumed t o be the same f o r both ends and f o r both p o s i t i v e and

negative moments.
I f the computed moment a t one end o f the
member i s g r e a t e r than a t the o t h e r end, the b i g g e r moment i s

chosen t o compute the damage r a t i o .
51
3.2
Computer Program
The
use o f a computer i s e s s e n t i a l f o r p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a -
t i o n s o f the m o d i f i e d
The i t e r a t i v e
process t h a t i s r e q u i r e d i n the method can be i n c o r p o r a t e d

program q u i t e e a s i l y .
little
difficulty.
The program i t s e l f can be w r i t t e n w i t h
I f an e l a s t i c modal a n a l y s i s program i s
a v a i l a b l e , r e l a t i v e l y few m o d i f i c a t i o n s
The
flow diagram o f the m o d i f i e d
gram i s shown i n F i g . 3.2.
a r e necessary.
s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e pro-
Data f o r s t r u c t u r a l d e f i n i t i o n ,
member p r o p e r t i e s , and j o i n t l o c a t i o n s a r e read

the
i n the
f i r s t p a r t o f the program.
i n and s t o r e d i n
The damage r a t i o s o f a l l the
members should be i n i t i a l i z e d a t one.
Then the mass matrix
should be s e t up; i t remains unchanged throughout the i t e r a t i o n

process.
The s t r u c t u r e s t i f f n e s s m a t r i x i s assembled from member
matrices.
according
The f l e x u r a l p a r t o f the member s t i f f n e s s i s m o d i f i e d

t o the damage r a t i o u s i n g equation
the damage r a t i o s are s e t a t one i n the f i r s t
(2.21).
Since a l l
i t e r a t i o n the s t r u c -
ture s t i f f n e s s m a t r i x i s the same as i n the e l a s t i c a n a l y s i s .

T h i s m a t r i x and the mass m a t r i x are used t o s o l v e f o r n a t u r a l
periods,
Since
a s s o c i a t e d mode shapes, and modal p a r t i c i p a t i o n f a c t o r s .
i t i n v o l v e s a r e g u l a r e i g e n v a l u e problem, a l i b r a r y sub-
routine i s usually available.
I n i t i a l l y a s u i t a b l e set of
damping r a t i o s should be given by the user.

for
a l l the modes was used by the author.
Ten per cent

A spectrum
i s c a l l e d and a peak ground a c c e l e r a t i o n i s r e t u r n e d .

load v e c t o r
damping
subroutine
Then a
i s s e t up and the s t i f f n e s s m a t r i x i s i n v e r t e d t o
solve f o r d e f l e c t i o n s .
Modal f o r c e s can be computed i n the u s u a l
52
manner.
T h i s process i s repeated f o r a l l the modes and RSS f o r c e s
and displacements are computed.
A t the end RSS moments are com-
pared with r e s p e c t i v e y i e l d moments.
I f the y i e l d moment o f any
member i s exceeded, i t e r a t i o n i s necessary.
The damage r a t i o o f
such a member i s m o d i f i e d a c c o r d i n g to equation

From the second
(3.3) o r (3.4).
i t e r a t i o n the s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method
i s used to compute modal f o r c e s and displacements.

s t i f f n e s s m a t r i x i s reassembled
and the computation
participation
all
The s t r u c t u r e
u s i n g the new s e t o f damage r a t i o s
o f n a t u r a l p e r i o d s , mode shapes, and modal
f a c t o r s i s repeated.
S u b s t i t u t e damping r a t i o s o f
the members should be c a l c u l a t e d a t t h i s stage using equation
(2.20).
Modal f o r c e s a r e c a l c u l a t e d twice.
F o r c e s f o r the
undamped case are computed f i r s t t o c a l c u l a t e the f l e x u r a l

energy s t o r e d i n each member.
Smeared damping r a t i o s
modes are computed u s i n g equations
(2.23) and (2.24).
strain
f o r a l l the
They are
used t o g e t the peak ground a c c e l e r a t i o n s from the spectrum.

Modal f o r c e s and displacements are recomputed and RSS f o r c e s and
displacements a r e obtained a t the end.
i s used t o modify
the damage r a t i o s .
necessary u n t i l a l l the damage r a t i o s

very many i t e r a t i o n s
t i c a l convergence
iterations
Equation
(3.3) o r (3.4)
F u r t h e r i t e r a t i o n s are
stop changing.
In p r a c t i c e ,
are necessary t o achieve t h i s and more p r a c -
c r i t e r i a must be used t o keep the number o f
a t a reasonable l e v e l .
The program used by the author
i s l i s t e d i n Appendix B.
The c o s t o f running the program depends d i r e c t l y on the
number o f i t e r a t i o n s .
I f the convergence
can be a c c e l e r a t e d , the
saving i n CPU time and hence c o s t can be s u b s t a n t i a l .

was made t o achieve a c c e l e r a t e d convergence
An attempt
and a method i s
described
i n a subsequent s e c t i o n o f t h i s chapter.
Obviously
the
proposed method i s more c o s t l y than an o r d i n a r y modal a n a l y s i s

because of the amount of computation i n v o l v e d , but
requirement i s roughly
t h i s method i s s t i l l
the
this analysis i s s t i l l
time r e q u i r e d f o r
Therefore,
o v e r a l l c o s t of running
small compared to the c o s t of running
advantage of the modified

nonlinear
the CPU
storage
a f r a c t i o n of t h a t f o r the f u l l - s c a l e non-
l i n e a r dynamic a n a l y s i s .
nonlinear
same and
the
the
Coupled w i t h ease of data setup,
s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method over
dynamic a n a l y s i s i s s u b s t a n t i a l .
the
the
54
3.3
Convergence
In order t o t e s t whether the m o d i f i e d
substitute
method a c t u a l l y works, t e s t frames a r e r e q u i r e d .
structure
The damage
r a t i o s o f a l l the members i n such frames must be known f o r a

given
l i n e a r response spectrum.
Since the method u t i l i z e s the
s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method, i t i s p o s s i b l e t o design a frame by

the
s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method and then s u b j e c t
by the m o d i f i e d
i t to analysis
When the i t e r a t i o n
procedure i s complete the computed damage r a t i o s should be equal

to the t a r g e t damage r a t i o s a s s i g n e d i n the d e s i g n method.
Since
the RSS f o r c e s a r e used as the computed f o r c e s , the design
forces
i n the s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method must a l s o be the RSS f o r c e s ,

not the f o r c e s which a r e i n c r e a s e d
(2.25).
by the f a c t o r i n equation
Two frames were t e s t e d t h i s way.
The
first
t e s t frame i s a 2-bay, 3-story
are shown on F i g . 3.3.
frame.
The s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method was used
to compute the y i e l d moments and n a t u r a l p e r i o d s

shown on F i g . 3.3.
The
The data
which are a l s o
RSS moments were taken as the d e s i g n moments.
t a r g e t damage r a t i o s were one f o r the columns and s i x f o r the
beams.
was used
The same response spectrum as i n the p r e v i o u s examples

( F i g . 2.5). T h i s frame was then s u b j e c t e d
t o the modi-
f i e d s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e a n a l y s i s t o t e s t the convergence o f
periods
and damage r a t i o s .
The i t e r a t i o n was c a r r i e d out 20
times and the n a t u r a l p e r i o d s

the end o f each i t e r a t i o n .
and damage r a t i o s were p r i n t e d a t
The damping r a t i o s f o r a l l three
modes were taken as 10% o f the c r i t i c a l i n the f i r s t c y l c e of

iteration.
The three n a t u r a l p e r i o d s
computed i n each i t e r a t i o n
are
l i s t e d on Table 3.1.
To i l l u s t r a t e the speed o f convergence,
each p e r i o d i s normalized t o t h a t computed i n the s u b s t i t u t e

s t r u c t u r e method and the p l o t o f the normalized p e r i o d s versus
the
number o f i t e r a t i o n s i s shown on F i g . 3.4.
As can be seen
from the p l o t , the n a t u r a l p e r i o d f o r the f i r s t mode converged

very r a p i d l y .
I t took only f i v e i t e r a t i o n s f o r the f i r s t mode
p e r i o d s t o be w i t h i n 1% o f the c o r r e c t p e r i o d .
of
The convergence
the second mod p e r i o d and the t h i r d mode p e r i o d were slower;
they were w i t h i n 1% o f the c o r r e c t p e r i o d s a f t e r 13 i t e r a t i o n s .

The second mode p e r i o d s approached the c o r r e c t value more r a p i d l y
d u r i n g the f i r s t
few i t e r a t i o n s than the t h i r d mode p e r i o d .
The damage r a t i o s o f s e l e c t e d columns and beams are l i s t e d

i n Table 3.2 and the p l o t i s shown i n F i g . 3.5.
The damage
r a t i o s of column 1 and beam 1 converged very r a p i d l y .
Only 6
i t e r a t i o n s were necessary b e f o r e they were w i t h i n 1% o f t h e i r

r e s p e c t i v e t a r g e t damage r a t i o s .
Convergence of damage r a t i o i n
beam 2 was slower and i t took 15 i t e r a t i o n s t o be w i t h i n 1% o f

the
of
t a r g e t damage r a t i o .
the four members.
Column 2 had the slowest convergence
I t s damage r a t i o was w i t h i n 1% o f the
t a r g e t damage r a t i o a t the end o f 20 i t e r a t i o n s .

As can be seen from the two p l o t s , the p e r i o d s converged
f a s t e r than the damage r a t i o s .
Among the n a t u r a l p e r i o d s , the
lowest mode p e r i o d converged a t the f a s t e s t r a t e , and the h i g h e s t

mode the slowest.
As f a r as the convergence o f the damage r a t i o s
i s concerned those o f the members i n the lower s t o r y converged

f a s t e r than i n the upper s t o r y .
T h i s i s l o g i c a l , because the
response o f the members i n the lower s t o r y i s governed by the

lower mode and the convergence o f the n a t u r a l p e r i o d s and hence
56
the mode shapes i s f a s t e r f o r the lower mode.
The
example.
same 2-bay, 3-story frame was used i n the second

The member p r o p e r t i e s were the same as i n the f i r s t
frame, the t a r g e t
target
damage r a t i o s were changed.
damage r a t i o s o f two, one, and t h r e e .
The columns had

The same damage
r a t i o s were assigned t o a l l columns on the same a x i s .

get
damage r a t i o s f o r beams were s i x i n one bay and two i n the
other bay.
the
The s u b s t i t u t e
structure
method was used t o compute
y i e l d moments, which were RSS moments.
natural
p e r i o d s are shown i n F i g . 3.6.
yzed by the m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e
The
natural
i n F i g . 3.7.
very r a p i d .
The frame was then
structure
method.
20 i t e r a t i o n s a r e
The p l o t o f normalized p e r i o d s a r e shown
The convergence o f the f i r s t two p e r i o d s was again
I t was w i t h i n 4.3% o f the c o r r e c t
v a l u e a f t e r 20
The damage r a t i o s converged very s l o w l y .
shows the damage r a t i o s a t the end o f s e l e c t e d

tions.
anal-
The p e r i o d f o r the t h i r d mode, however, was r e l a -
t i v e l y slow.
iterations.
Those f o r c e s and the
p e r i o d s computed i n the f i r s t
t a b u l a t e d i n Table 3.3.
F i g . 3.8
numbers o f i t e r a -
At the end o f 20 i t e r a t i o n s the damage r a t i o s o f the
third-story
the
The t a r -
target
columns and beams were s t i l l q u i t e d i f f e r e n t

ones.
from
The i t e r a t i o n was c a r r i e d out 200 times and by
then they d i d converge to the c o r r e c t
values.
The p l o t o f damage
r a t i o s a g a i n s t the number o f i t e r a t i o n s i s shown i n F i g . 3.9.

The
r a t e o f convergence o f damage r a t i o s were much slower i n the
second example than i n the f i r s t example.
F i g . 3.9 shows t h a t
about 100 i t e r a t i o n s were necessary t o achieve reasonable estimate

of damage r a t i o s .
applies
The same c o n c l u s i o n i n the p r e v i o u s example
i n the second example.
57
The
(1)
r e s u l t s o f these two examples showed the f o l l o w i n g .
The n a t u r a l p e r i o d s
converge a t a f a s t e r r a t e than the
(2)
f o r the lower modes converge f a s t e r
than those i n the h i g h e r modes.

C3)
In g e n e r a l ,
the damage r a t i o s o f the upper s t o r y columns
and beams converge a t a slower r a t e than those o f the lower

stories.
(4)
Both the damage r a t i o s and the n a t u r a l p e r i o d s

verge m o n o t o n i c a l l y .
the
(5)
first
This point i s p a r t i c u l a r l y true i n
few c y c l e s o f i t e r a t i o n s .
The r a t e o f convergence slows down as the number o f i t e r a tions increases.

first
The most r a p i d changes occur during the
few c y c l e s o f i t e r a t i o n .
These o b s e r v a t i o n s
be
do not con-
were confirmed i n the other examples t h a t w i l l
shown l a t e r on.
It
i s , i n p r a c t i c e , impossible
t o c a r r y out the i t e r a t i o n
process u n t i l a l l the damage r a t i o s cease t o f l u c t u a t e .

as a good estimate o f damage r a t i o s i s obtained,
procedure should be stopped.
for
t h i s purpose.
As soon
the i t e r a t i o n
Some c r i t e r i o n must be e s t a b l i s h e d
I t i s p o s s i b l e , but not p r a c t i c a l , t o keep
t r a c k o f every damage r a t i o a t the end o f each i t e r a t i o n .
It is
a l s o i m p r a c t i c a l t o s e t the l i m i t on the number o f i t e r a t i o n s a t

a c e r t a i n number.
The two examples i n t h i s s e c t i o n
t h i s p o i n t very c l e a r l y .
30,
in
illustrated
I f the number o f i t e r a t i o n s i s s e t a t
say, then the l a s t 10 t o 15 i t e r a t i o n s i s t o t a l l y unnecessary

the f i r s t example.
On the other hand, i n a c c u r a t e
damage r a t i o s r e s u l t s i n the second example.
estimate o f
Two approaches
58
seem p o s s i b l e as s u i t a b l e convergence c r i t e r i a .
One approach i s
to compare the v a l u e s o f the damage r a t i o o f each member a t the

end o f the i t e r a t i o n w i t h t h a t o f the p r e v i o u s i t e r a t i o n .
The
f o l l o w i n g formula may be used.
( V n - l
C y
where
i n-1
^ i ^ n
a m a <
(3.5)
< 6
r a t i o o f i t h element a t the end o f
n th iteration
(y^) _
n
= damage r a t i o o f the same element a t the end
of n-1 t h i t e r a t i o n
6 = constant
I f t h i s i s t r u e f o r a l l the elements i n the s t r u c t u r e , the i t e r a t i o n i s complete and the f o r c e s , d i s p l a c e m e n t s , and damage r a t i o s
can
be p r i n t e d .
An a l t e r n a t i v e approach i s t o compare the com-
puted moments w i t h the y i e l d moments.
The f o l l o w i n g formula i s
s u i t a b l e f o r t h i s purpose.
(M. ) - (M . )
i n
yi
(M .)
yi
where
^ i^n
M
c o m
(3.6)
< e
P t e d RSS moment i n i t h element

u
during n th i t e r a t i o n
(M .) = y i e l d moment f o r i t h element
yl
J
= constant.
I f t h i s i n e q u a l i t y i s s a t i s f i e d f o r a l l the elements w i t h damage
r a t i o s g r e a t e r than one, no more i t e r a t i o n i s n e c e s s a r y .
A definite
direct
advantage o f the f i r s t method i s t h a t i t i s a
comparison o f the damage r a t i o s
computed i n the l a t e s t two
iterations.
The second method i s an i n d i r e c t comparison o f the
ratios.
the
I t i s not c l e a r
how much change i s made on damage
The f i r s t approach has a d e f i n i t e
disadvantage, because
denominator changes a t every i t e r a t i o n .
Because o f t h i s
reason the second approach was adopted by the author.
It i s
hoped t h a t t h i s c r i t e r i o n produces a more uniform r e s u l t f o r

different
types o f s t r u c t u r e s .
With a l i t t l e e x p e r i e n c e a s u i t -
able value f o r e can be s p e c i f i e d .

it
In running a computer program
i s d e s i r a b l e t o s e t the l i m i t on the number of i t e r a t i o n s ,
because no output would be o b t a i n e d i f a value f o r e was too

s m a l l and CPU time exceeded the l i m i t s e t by the user.
In s p i t e o f the f o r e g o i n g d i s c u s s i o n , i t should be noted
that, i n practice,
because of the i n a c c u r a c i e s i n modeling the
structure, i n predicting
the earthquake, and i n c o r r e l a t i n g
damage r a t i o w i t h a c t u a l damage, the r e s u l t s

to a h i g h degree o f p r e c i s i o n .
a r e not s i g n i f i c a n t
60
3.4
Ac eele r a t e d C onverge nce
The
c o s t o f running the m o d i f i e d
method i s roughly
substitute structure
p r o p o r t i o n a l to the number o f i t e r a t i o n s
i s necessary t o meet the convergence c r i t e r i o n .
I f there
that
isa
way t o a c c e l e r a t e the convergence, the method becomes a more

powerful t o o l .
An e f f o r t was made t o achieve t h i s goal and the
f o l l o w i n g procedure was developed.

I t was observed i n the two examples i n the l a s t
section
t h a t the most r a p i d changes i n the damage r a t i o occurred

the f i r s t
s e v e r a l c y c l e s o f the i t e r a t i o n process and then the
damage r a t i o s
g r a d u a l l y approached the f i n a l v a l u e s .
r a t i o s are m o d i f i e d
equation
The damage
a t the end o f each i t e r a t i o n by the use o f
(3.3) or (3.4).
I t appeared p o s s i b l e t o make over-
c o r r e c t i o n s on the damage r a t i o s
vergence.
during
i n order
t o speed up the con-
I t i s easy t o keep t r a c k o f the d i f f e r e n c e between the
new damage r a t i o o f an element, and the damage r a t i o o f the same

element i n the previous
iteration.
The f o l l o w i n g formula was
proposed f o r o v e r c o r r e c t i o n of damage r a t i o s .
( y . ) ' = (y.) + a (y.) - (y.) .

i n
i n
i n
l n-1
p
where
(3.7)
(y ) ' o v e r c o r r e c t e d damage r a t i o of i t h element

i n
used f o r n t h i t e r a t i o n
damage r a t i o o f i t h element computed a t the
end
o f n-1 t h i t e r a t i o n u s i n g equation (3.3)
or (3.4)
(u-)
in-
= damage r a t i o o f i t h element used i n n-1
61
th
iteration
a = positive
constant.
What i s proposed i n equation
(3.7) i s t h a t some f r a c t i o n o f the
d i f f e r e n c e between the m o d i f i e d damage r a t i o and the p r e v i o u s

damage r a t i o be added t o the m o d i f i e d damage r a t i o .
Since a
i s a p o s i t i v e constant, the o v e r c o r r e c t e d damage r a t i o i s s m a l l e r

than the m o d i f i e d one when the damage r a t i o i s a l t e r e d t o have a
lower value than the previous one, but o v e r c o r r e c t e d damage
r a t i o s cannot be l e s s than one.
I t was found t h a t a p p l y i n g t h i s
o v e r c o r r e c t i o n from the beginning c o u l d l e a d t o an unexpected

r e s u l t , because the damage r a t i o s change q u i t e r a p i d l y d u r i n g the
f i r s t stage o f the i t e r a t i o n procedure.
The damage r a t i o s may
f l u c t u a t e up and down v i o l e n t l y from one i t e r a t i o n t o another.

I t i s s t r o n g l y a d v i s a b l e t h a t the constant, a , be s e t t o zero
during the f i r s t
t i o n procedure
f i v e t o t e n i t e r a t i o n s , so t h a t the o v e r c o r r e c -
i s a p p l i e d when the damage r a t i o s change a t a
I f such a p r e c a u t i o n i s taken, the value o f a may
small r a t e .
be s e t a t as h i g h as one t o achieve f a s t e r but s t i l l
smooth
convergence.
The
procedure.
f o l l o w i n g example i l l u s t r a t e s the u s e f u l n e s s o f the

I t a l s o shows how c l o s e l y the damage r a t i o s approach
the exact values when d i f f e r e n t l i m i t s a r e used as convergence

criteria.
The second example i n the p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n was used.
A l l the r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n i s shown i n F i g . 3.6.
R e c a l l the
convergence c r i t e r i o n proposed i n the p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n .
CM..). . - CM .)
l n
y i
(M .)
yi
v
<
I t was
C3.6)
where e i s a c o n s t a n t .
the
e was s e t a t 10
, 10
, and 10
When
r e l a t i o n i n (3.6) was s a t i s f i e d f o r a l l the members, the
i t e r a t i o n procedure was stopped.
S i x runs were made i n t o t a l .
In the f i r s t three runs no o v e r c o r r e c t i o n was made and the

numbers o f i t e r a t i o n s r e q u i r e d t o achieve the three convergence
c r i t e r i a were recorded.
In the next three runs the same t h r e e

-2
convergence c r i t e r i a were used; t h a t i s , e was s e t a t 10
-3
,10
-4
and 10
, but the o v e r c o r r e c t i o n of damage r a t i o s was
a was s e t a t 1.0 a t the end of the f i f t h
i t e r a t i o n and the number
of i t e r a t i o n s r e q u i r e d was r e c o r d e d f o r each run.

are
applied,
The r e s u l t s
g i v e n i n Table 3.4.
-2
When e was s e t a t 10
, i t took 29 i t e r a t i o n s
to s a t i s f y
t h i s c r i t e r i o n without o v e r c o r r e c t i o n of damage r a t i o s .
When the
damage r a t i o s were o v e r c o r r e c t e d , the number of i t e r a t i o n s

-3
reduced t o 18 f o r a saving of 11 i t e r a t i o n s .
was
At = 10
158 i t e r a t i o n s were r e q u i r e d without o v e r c o r r e c t i o n t e c h n i q u e .

With i t , the number was reduced t o only 81 f o r a s a v i n g of 77
-4
iterations.
At e = 10
the convergence c r i t e r i o n was not met
a f t e r 200 i t e r a t i o n s when o v e r c o r r e c t i o n s were not made, but i t

was met a f t e r 12 4 i t e r a t i o n s when they were made.
Clearly
technique a c c e l e r a t e d the convergence o f the damage r a t i o s .
this
The
number of i t e r a t i o n s was reduced by one t h i r d t o almost one h a l f .

The saving i n computation i s s u b s t a n t i a l when the convergence i s
slow i n a case such as the example used here.
The g a i n i s not so
s i g n i f i c a n t when the convergence i s f a s t , as i t i s i n the f i r s t

example i n the p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n .
Since i t i s i m p o s s i b l e t o p r e -
d i c t the r a t e of convergence beforehand, t h i s technique should

be used a l l the time.
On r a r e o c c a s i o n s the method produced bad
r e s u l t s i n which the damage r a t i o s o s c i l l a t e d .
In order to a v o i d
t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y , a may be s e t a t a constant l e s s than one o r the

a p p l i c a t i o n o f the technique may be delayed u n t i l more than 10
i t e r a t i o n s are completed.
Table 3.5 shows how c l o s e l y the damage r a t i o s o f a l l the
members approached the exact value when d i f f e r e n t e v a l u e s were
specified.
O v e r c o r r e c t i o n s were made i n a l l cases.
The same
-2
a p p l i e s t o the n a t u r a l p e r i o d s .
When an e o f 10
was
reached,
some o f the damage r a t i o s were s t i l l q u i t e f a r from the exact

ones; the t h i r d - s t o r y columns and beams f a l l
i n this
category.
The n a t u r a l p e r i o d f o r the t h i r d mode d i f f e r s the most from the

exact one but the d i f f e r e n c e i s l e s s than three p e r c e n t .
At
-3
e = 10
almost a l l the damage r a t i o s are very c l o s e t o the
exact v a l u e s . The n a t u r a l p e r i o d s are even c l o s e r t o the exact
-4
values than the damage r a t i o s . A t e = 10
both the damage r a t i o s
-2
and the n a t u r a l p e r i o d s a r e p r a c t i c a l l y exact.
e s e t a t 10
is
-3
probably too c o a r s e .
e should be s e t a t somewhere between 10
-2
-3
and 10 . I t was found from other runs t h a t e s e t at 10
produced s a t i s f a c t o r y r e s u l t s .
However, i f the m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e
s t r u c t u r e method i s used t o o b t a i n a rough estimate e may be s e t
-2
at
a value a l i t t l e
t h a t i s warranted
s m a l l e r than 10
; and t h i s g e n e r a l l y i s a l l
i n practice.
I t may be p o s s i b l e t o i n c o r p o r a t e the o v e r c o r r e c t i o n o f
damage r a t i o s i n t o the formula f o r modifying the damage r a t i o s
at
the end o f the i t e r a t i o n .
When equations
(3.3) and (3.4) were
d e r i v e d , i t was assumed t h a t the same r o t a t i o n would be o b t a i n e d

in
the next i t e r a t i o n .
The s u b s t i t u t e s t i f f n e s s and hence the
damage r a t i o was i n c r e a s e d o r decreased a c c o r d i n g l y t o s a t i s f y
t h i s assumption.
But t h i s assumption i s not a b s o l u t e l y n e c e s s a r y .
Another assumption i s p o s s i b l e and w i t h such an assumption a new

formula may be d e r i v e d t o achieve f a s t e r convergence.
Further
study i s p o s s i b l e i n t h i s area.
As a f i n a l remark i n t h i s chapter i t i s worth n o t i n g
the
two examples
that
i n the p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n , even though they were
i d e n t i c a l frames, except f o r the y i e l d moments, l a y on the two

extreme s i d e s as f a r as the r a t e o f convergence was concerned.
I t was very r a r e t h a t the damage r a t i o s o f a s t r u c t u r e converged
at
a f a s t e r r a t e than they d i d i n the f i r s t example,
slower r a t e than i n the second example.
or at a
Even when the s i z e o f a
s t r u c t u r e i n the f i r s t example was c o n s i d e r a b l y g r e a t e r than the

s t r u c t u r e i n the second example,
to
fewer i t e r a t i o n s were r e q u i r e d
s a t i s f y the same convergence c r i t e r i o n .
In g e n e r a l ,
less
than 20 i t e r a t i o n s a r e necessary t o o b t a i n a good e s t i m a t e on

damage r a t i o s f o r most o f the s t r u c t u r e s i n p r a c t i c e .
65
CHAPTER 4
4.1
EXAMPLES
Assumptions and Comments
The goal of the m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e
analysis i s
to p r e d i c t the behaviour o f an e x i s t i n g r e i n f o r c e d concrete

t u r e under a g i v e n earthquake motion.
f i n d out whether the method f u l f i l l s
T e s t s must be performed t o
this intent.
impossible to do an a c t u a l experiment.
analytically.
struc-
I t i s almost
The t e s t must be done
Among many a n a l y t i c a l methods, a n o n l i n e a r
dynamic
a n a l y s i s produces the most accurate p r e d i c t i o n o f the behaviour o f

a s t r u c t u r e which i s subjected
therefore,
t o an earthquake motion.
e s s e n t i a l t h a t the m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e
It i s ,
s t r u c t u r e method
produce a r e s u l t which i s comparable t o t h a t o b t a i n e d from the

nonlinear
dynamic
analysis.
A s e r i e s o f t e s t frames were analyzed by the m o d i f i e d subs t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method.

analyses using
The same frames were a l s o subjected t o
the n o n l i n e a r
dynamic a n a l y s i s program.
r e s u l t s from the two analyses were compared.
The
The e x t e n t of damage
represented by damage r a t i o s , l o c a t i o n s o f damage and the d i s placements are the q u a n t i t i e s o f i n t e r e s t .

are d e s c r i b e d
i n d e t a i l , a l l the r e l e v a n t
t i o n s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d
Before the r e s u l t s
information
and assump-
i n this section.
A t o t a l o f four frames were t e s t e d .
They were not modeled
from a c t u a l e x i s t i n g b u i l d i n g s , but
sent
they were intended to
repre-
s m a l l - to medium-sized r e i n f o r c e d c o n c r e t e s t r u c t u r e s .
t e s t on a l a r g e r s t r u c t u r e was
l i m i t a t i o n s of the n o n l i n e a r
cost involved
not p o s s i b l e mainly due
to
i n the a n a l y s i s was
the
The
another reason to l i m i t
high
the
s i z e of a t e s t frame.
In order to s a t i s f y the second
listed
they were a l l r e g u l a r frames w i t h no
i n s e c t i o n 3.2,
change i n geometry.
The
condition
abrupt
dimensions o f a frame were determined
that they would represent

Member s i z e s and
so
an a c t u a l b u i l d i n g of comparable s i z e .
p r o p e r t i e s were chosen somewhat a r b i t r a r i l y
are not n e c e s s a r i l y completely r e a l i s t i c .
and
Since the method would
be used i n p r a c t i c e f o r a n a l y s i s of b u i l d i n g s t h a t may
not have
been designed to r e s i s t earthquakes, the member p r o p e r t i e s were

d e l i b e r a t e l y chosen i n an a r b i t r a r y f a s h i o n .
the m o d i f i e d
f e l t that i f
s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method worked f o r these t e s t
frames, i t would work f o r more r e a l i s t i c

t e s t was
I t was
a n a l y t i c a l , there was
structures.
Since
the
no r e s t r i c t i o n on the choice
of
these parameters.
The
f o l l o w i n g assumptions were made i n the modeling of
frames f o r use with the m o d i f i e d

Beams and
columns were modeled as l i n e members.
deformations were ignored.

be
f i x e d a t ground l e v e l .
The
P-A
modeled as a p o i n t .
ends of a member were taken to
e f f e c t i n the columns were not
Upon running a program o v e r c o r r e c t i o n

a p p l i e d a f t e r the f i r s t
the equation
(3.7)
was
Their a x i a l
bottom columns were assumed to
A j o i n t was
Moment c a p a c i t i e s a t the two

equal.
s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e program.
included.
o f damage r a t i o s
ten c y c l e s of i t e r a t i o n was
s e t a t 0.95.
be
Equation
(3.6)
over.
was
was
a in
used
as
a convergence c r i t e r i o n and e was
s e t a t 10
Iteration
stopped as soon as t h i s convergence c r i t e r i o n was

A n o n l i n e a r dynamic a n a l y s i s program
was
satisfied.
f o r frames, SAKE,
used t o compute the response h i s t o r y o f each frame.
ness a f t e r y i e l d was
was
taken as 2% o f the i n i t i a l
12
The
stiffness.
stiffThe
a n a l y s i s was made w i t h v i s c o u s damping p r o p o r t i o n a l to s t i f f n e s s ,

corresponding t o a damping r a t i o o f 2% f o r the f i r s t mode. J o i n t s
were modeled as i n f i n i t e l y r i g i d beams, w i t h s i z e s p r o p o r t i o n e d
a c c o r d i n g t o the member s i z e s .
to
1/50
A time step c o r r e s p o n d i n g to
of the s m a l l e s t p e r i o d was
1/30
used f o r n u m e r i c a l i n t e r a t i o n .
Response c a l c u l a t i o n s were done a t every f i v e to ten time steps.

Choosing a proper response spectrum i s beyond the scope of
5
this thesis.
The d e s i g n spectrum A i n Shibata and Sozen's paper
was used f o r the m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e a n a l y s i s .

mentioned i n s e c t i o n 2.3,
six
earthquake motions
i t was
As
d e r i v e d from response s p e c t r a of
( F i g . 2.5).
Equation (2.26) was
used to
compute the response a c c e l e r a t i o n when the damping r a t i o was

f e r e n t from 2%.
of
The maxium ground a c c e l e r a t i o n was
0.5 g.
difFour
the s i x earthquake r e c o r d s , from which the d e s i g n spectrum
was
made, were used t o compute the response h i s t o r i e s .
They were E l
Centro EW,
Each r e c o r d
E l Centro NS,
T a f t S69E, and T a f t N21E.
was normalized to g i v e a peak ground a c c e l e r a t i o n of 0.5 g.

d u r a t i o n o f each earthquake r e c o r d was
chosen such t h a t each
frame r e c e i v e d the maximum damage d u r i n g t h a t d u r a t i o n .

otherwise noted, the f i r s t
were used f o r computation.
The
Unless
15 seconds of each earthquake r e c o r d

CPU time f o r running the two programs
i s given t o i l l u s t r a t e the d i f f e r e n c e i n c o s t , but i t should be
68
noted t h a t the c o s t f o r storage was much h i g h e r f o r the n o n l i n e a r
dynamic a n a l y s i s program, because i t r e q u i r e d more memory.
The damage r a t i o s and displacements
son o f the two a n a l y s e s .
Since the design spectrum was the
average spectrum o f the s i x earthquakes,

ified
were used f o r compari-
the r e s u l t s o f the mod-
s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e a n a l y s i s should be viewed as
of the f o u r n o n l i n e a r dynamic a n a l y s e s .
"average"
69
4.2
Examples
(a)

The two-bay, two-story frame of F i g . 4.1 was
frame.
was
The widths o f both bays were 30 f e e t .
used as a t e s t
The ground
12 f e e t i n h e i g h t and the second s t o r y was
story
10 f e e t high.
f l o o r weights f o r the f i r s t and second s t o r y were 120 k i p s

1Q0
kips respectively.
i n t e r i o r columns.
and
The e x t e r i o r columns were b i g g e r than the
T h e i r cracked transformed moments of i n e r t i a
were taken as approximately one-half of the gross s e c t i o n .

moments o f i n e r t i a f o r beams were about o n e - t h i r d
section.
An e l a s t i c a n a l y s i s was
periods.
As shown i n Table 4.1,
were 0.50
sec. and 0.13
period
structure.
The
The
of the gross
run to compute the
natural
the p e r i o d s f o r the two modes
sec. r e s p e c t i v e l y , r e p r e s e n t i n g
short
The y i e l d moments were assigned randomly
t h a t each member was
expected to r e c e i v e
such
a d i f f e r e n t amount of
i n e l a s t i c deformation.
In the m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e a n a l y s i s i t took
i t e r a t i o n s t o s a t i s f y the convergence
on the Amdahl V/6-II computer was
of the s u b s t i t u t e
sec.
0.91
sec.
The CPU
time
frame computed i n the l a s t i t e r a t i o n were
f o r the f i r s t mode and 0.18
Table 4.1).
criterion.
24
0.76
sec. f o r the second mode (See
The f l o o r displacements were computed as the
root-
sum-square of the modal displacements and are shown i n Table

The displacement of the f i r s t
second f l o o r was
3.8
in.
q u i t e random as expected
columns y i e l d e d .
f l o o r was
1.8
i n . and t h a t of the
The d i s t r i b u t i o n of damage r a t i o s
(See F i g . 4.2).
4.2.
A l l the
was
first-story
The damage r a t i o s f o r those columns were
4.2,
70
2.6,
and 1.4 r e s p e c t i v e l y .
y i e l d v e r y much.
The second-story columns d i d not
One o f the e x t e r i o r
A l l the four beams y i e l d e d .
columns remained e l a s t i c .
The f i r s t - f l o o r beam i n the l e f t bay
had the b i g g e s t damage r a t i o a t 4.8.

Response h i s t o r i e s o f the t e s t frame t o f o u r earthquake
12
motions were computed by the computer program, SAKE.
The f i r s t
15 seconds o f earthquake r e c o r d s were used f o r response computation.
0.003 sec. was chosen as the time step f o r numerical i n t e -
gration.
sec.
CPU time was 12.9 s e c . f o r E l Centro EW motion, 12.2
f o r E l Centro NS, 11.8 s e c . f o r T a f t S69E, and 11.4 sec. f o r
T a f t N21E.
R e s u l t s o f the n o n l i n e a r a n a l y s e s are shown i n F i g .
4.3 and Table 4.2.

resulted
i n more damage t o the t e s t frame than the two components
of T a f t earthquake.
4.3.
The two components o f the E l Centro earthquake
The displacements and damage r a t i o s i n F i g .
and Table 4.2 were the maximum v a l u e s r e c o r d e d i n the r e -
sponse h i s t o r i e s .
The displacement o f the f i r s t - f l o o r
1.3 i n . to 2.8 i n . f o r d i f f e r e n t motions.

placement was 2.1 i n .
The mean maximum d i s -
The second f l o o r displacement ranged from
2.7 i n . t o 5.3 i n . w i t h a mean o f 4.2 i n .

Fig.
ranged from
The damage r a t i o s i n
4.3 correspond to the b i g g e r o f the two damage r a t i o s f o r
each member.
In the E l Centro EW motion a l l o f the f i r s t - s t o r y columns
suffered
9.6.
e x t e n s i v e damage w i t h damage r a t i o s r a n g i n g from 3.3 t o
On the o t h e r hand, none o f the columns on the second
yielded.
story
A recorded damage r a t i o l e s s than one i n F i g . 4.3 im-
p l i e s t h a t the maximum computed moment was t h a t

y i e l d moment.
The l e f t e x t e r i o r
f r a c t i o n o f the
column had the l e a s t damage. A l l
four beams y i e l d e d w i t h t h e i r damage r a t i o s r a n g i n g from 2.8 t o
71
6.4.
In the E l Centro NS motion
the f i r s t - s t o r y columns s u f f e r e d
approximately the same amount o f damage as i n the p r e v i o u s case.

The damage r a t i o s f o r the beams were a l s o approximately the same
as those i n the E l Centro EW motion.
Two o f the second-story
columns, however, y i e l d e d w i t h damage r a t i o s o f 1.3.

The T a f t S69E motion produced
two p r e v i o u s cases the f i r s t
the l e a s t damage.
As i n the
s t o r y columns y i e l d e d , b u t the
damage r a t i o s were roughly a h a l f o f those with E l Centro.

same a p p l i e s t o the beam damage r a t i o s .
second s t o r y remained
The
The t h r e e columns on the
e l a s t i c , but the maximum moments were com-
p a r a b l e t o those found i n the E l Centro EW motion.
The T a f t N21E
motion was more severe, but i t was not s t r o n g enough f o r the

second-story columns t o y i e l d .
The damage r a t i o s f o r the other
columns ranged from 2.0 t o 6.5 and those f o r the beams from 2.0
to
4.6.
The members which remained
e l a s t i c reached roughly the
same maximum moments i n a l l four motions, but those which y i e l d e d

s u f f e r e d d i f f e r e n t amounts o f damage i n each
When the average
motion.
f l o o r displacements from the n o n l i n e a r
dynamic analyses a r e compared w i t h those from the m o d i f i e d subs t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e a n a l y s i s as i n Table 4.2, i t i s found t h a t the
l a t t e r p r e d i c t e d s m a l l e r displacements i n both s t o r i e s .
The d i f -
ference was g r e a t e r f o r the f i r s t - f l o o r displacement which was

about 20% o f f than f o r the s e c o n d - f l o o r displacement which was
about 10% o f f .
Fig.
of
N e v e r t h e l e s s the estimate was reasonable.
4.2 shows the comparison
o f the average damage r a t i o s
the four motions w i t h the p r e d i c t e d v a l u e s .
sense the m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e a n a l y s i s
p r e d i c t e d t h a t the columns on the f i r s t
In a q u a l i t a t i v e
correctly
s t o r y would y i e l d and
t h a t the extent
column and
of damage would be g r e a t e s t f o r the l e f t e x t e r i o r
l e a s t f o r the r i g h t e x t e r i o r column.
damage r a t i o s were about 60%

f o u r motions.
The
But
the
predicted
of the average damage r a t i o s of
p r e d i c t i o n f o r the second-story columns
good except f o r the r i g h t e x t e r i o r column.
The m o d i f i e d
the
was
substi-
t u t e s t r u c t u r e method p r e d i c t e d t h a t t h i s column would y i e l d

s l i g h t l y , but
i t d i d not happen.
moment c a p a c i t y .
was
q u i t e good.
The
nonlinear
of i t s
p r e d i c t i o n of damage r a t i o s f o r the beams
Although they were s l i g h t l y underestimated, they
were a l l w i t h i n 20%
one
I t only reached 60%
of the average v a l u e s .
a n a l y s i s was
The
c o s t of running
about 13 times t h a t of the
modified
s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e a n a l y s i s i n t h i s example.
(b)
3-bay, 3-story
The
example.
Frame
three-bay, t h r e e - s t o r y
Data i s shown i n F i g . 4.4.
f e e t f o r the e x t e r i o r bays and

f i r s t s t o r y was
As
f l o o r , 200
second, and
180
k i p s f o r the
k i p s f o r the
than
floors.
i n e r t i a l of the gross s e c t i o n was

formed s e c t i o n .
The
third.
inter-
columns
the same dimension.
t h i r d - s t o r y columns were made s m a l l e r than the o t h e r s .

s i z e s were reduced at higher
One
The
third stories
In each group o f columns the f i r s t - s t o r y
the second-story columns were given
30
i n t e r i o r bay.
the second and
f l o o r weights were 240
k i p s f o r the
second
The width of bays was
i n the l a s t example, e x t e r i o r columns were b i g g e r
i o r columns.
and
The
t e s t e d i n the
2 0 f e e t f o r the
15 f e e t high and
were 12 f e e t h i g h .
first
frame was
The
The beam
h a l f o f the moment of
used f o r the cracked
trans-
r i g h t e x t e r i o r column on the second s t o r y
much s m a l l e r moment of i n e r t i a than i t s c o u n t e r p a r t .
had
The moment
73
of
i n e r t i a o f each beam was taken as one t h i r d o f t h a t o f the
gross s e c t i o n .
The y i e l d moments o f the columns were s e t a t h i g h
v a l u e s , e s p e c i a l l y i n the f i r s t s t o r y , so t h a t the columns would

not y i e l d too much.
The beam y i e l d moments were s m a l l e r i n the
l e f t bay than i n the other bays.

An e l a s t i c a n a l y s i s was performed p r i o r t o the t e s t t o
compute the n a t u r a l p e r i o d s o f the e l a s t i c frame.
As shown i n
Table 4.3, they were 0.94 s e c , 0.30 s e c , and 0.14 s e c .
These
p e r i o d s were much longer than those i n the p r e v i o u s example.

The
r e s u l t s o f the m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e a n a l y s i s
are shown i n F i g . 4.5, Table 4.3, and Table 4.4.

t i o n s were necessary
to s a t i s f y the convergence c r i t e r i o n .
took 0.92 s e c . o f CPU time t o do a l l the necessary

The
Only 14 i t e r a It
computation.
three n a t u r a l p e r i o d s o f the s u b s t i t u t e frame were 1.22 s e c ,
0.36 s e c , and 0.16 s e c . The i n c r e a s e i n n a t u r a l p e r i o d s
over
those from the e l a s t i c a n a l y s i s was l e s s f o r t h i s frame than the

p r e v i o u s frame.
The h o r i z o n t a l displacements
were 2.2 i n . f o r the f i r s t ,

for
o f the t h r e e
floors
5.0 i n . f o r the second, and 8.0 i n .
the t h i r d , i n d i c a t i n g a f a i r l y
uniform p a t t e r n o f d i s p l a c e -
ments (See Table 4.4). P r e d i c t e d damage r a t i o s a r e shown i n

Fig.
4.5.
A damage r a t i o l e s s than one i s e q u i v a l e n t t o the
r a t i o o f the computed moment t o the y i e l d moment.
I f the two
end moments were d i f f e r e n t i n a member, the b i g g e r o f the two

was used.
All
the columns on the f i r s t
s t o r y had damage r a t i o s of
1.1, i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e i r y i e l d moment c a p a c i t i e s were

exceeded.
slightly
One o f the columns on the second s t o r y y i e l d e d t o a
damage r a t i o o f 1.5, but the other three remained i n the e l a s t i c
range.
The moment c a p a c i t i e s of the t h i r d - s t o r y columns were
f u l l y u t i l i z e d , as t h e i r damage r a t i o s were almost 1.0 e x a c t l y .

Two beams i n the r i g h t e x t e r i o r bay remained e s s e n t i a l l y
elastic;
others had damage r a t i o s r a n g i n g from 2.0 t o 5.2.

N o n l i n e a r dynamic a n a l y s e s were run t o compute the response
h i s t o r i e s o f the frame i n the four earthquake motions.
15 seconds o f the r e c o r d s were used.
The f i r s t
Since t h i s was a b i g g e r
frame than the p r e v i o u s one, a c o n s i d e r a b l y l o n g e r time on the

Amdahl V/6-II computer was r e q u i r e d f o r computation.
The average
CPU time of one run was about 28 seconds, double the time
r e q u i r e d i n the p r e v i o u s example.
A time increment o f 0.003 sec.
was s e l e c t e d f o r numerical i n t e g r a t i o n .
The r e s u l t s o f f o u r runs a r e shown i n F i g . 4.6.
ments are shown i n Table 4.4.
from one earthquake t o another.
the
They e x h i b i t e d a l a r g e
Displacevariation
E l Centro EW component produced
b i g g e s t displacements, twice as b i g as those i n T a f t N21E
component.
E l Centro NS produced the second b i g g e s t
ment and T a f t S69E motion f o l l o w e d .

were 2.2 i n . f o r the f i r s t
7.5 i n . f o r the t h i r d .
displace-
The average displacements
f l o o r , 4.7 i n . f o r the second, and
The t h i r d - f l o o r displacement, f o r example,
ranged from 5.2 i n . i n T a f t N31E t o 10.6 i n . i n E l Centro EW.

The same t r e n d was found i n damage r a t i o s .
The damage r a t i o s were the h i g h e s t i n the E l Centro EW
motion.
A l l the columns on the f i r s t
around 1.8.
s t o r y had damage r a t i o s
The r i g h t i n t e r i o r columns on the second and t h i r d
s t o r i e s y i e l d e d as w e l l , but the r e s t o f the columns remained

elastic.
The two e x t e r i o r columns on the t h i r d s t o r y had the
lowest computed moments.
A l l the beams y i e l d e d w i t h damage
75
r a t i o s r a n g i n g from 1.5 t o 6.4.
experienced the l e a s t damage.
in
The beams i n the r i g h t bay

Inelastic
deformations o c c u r r e d
the same beams and columns i n the E l Centro NS motion.
The
damage r a t i o s o f these members, however, were lower i n t h i s

motion than i n EW motion.
The moment c a p a c i t i e s
the two columns on the second s t o r y ,

In the T a f t
were reached i n
but they d i d not y i e l d .
S69E motion o n l y one column underwent i n e l a s t i c
deformation, the r i g h t i n t e r i o r column on the second s t o r y ,

damage r a t i o o f 1.2.
A l l the columns on the f i r s t
story
with,
and two
on the t h i r d s t o r y had computed moments equal t o o r a l i t t l e

than t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e y i e l d moments.
less
Two o f the beams d i d not
y i e l d , although t h e i r damage r a t i o s were almost one.
Damage
r a t i o s o f the o t h e r beams ranged from 1.8 to 4.6 which were much

lower than the values found i n the E l Centro EW motion.
damage r a t i o s were the lowest i n the T a f t N21E motion.
the columns and two beams remained
The
A l l of
e l a s t i c and those which
yielded
had damage r a t i o s r a n g i n g from 1.5 t o 4.0.

Average damage r a t i o s a r e shown i n F i g . 4.5.
When these
v a l u e s are compared w i t h those p r e d i c t e d by the m o d i f i e d substitute structure analysis,

prediction
t h e r e i s a remarkable
o f beam damage r a t i o s
i s excellent
Even the worst one was o f f by o n l y 15%.
agreement.
without e x c e p t i o n .
The p r e d i c t i o n
damage r a t i o s was a l i t t l e worse than f o r the beams.

damage r a t i o s o f the e x t e r i o r
modified substitute
At
o f column
Only the
columns on the t h i r d s t o r y were
s l i g h t l y o f f , but o t h e r s were i n good agreement.

displacements a l s o
The
The average
agreed very w e l l w i t h those p r e d i c t e d by the

structure analysis,
as shown i n Table 4.4.
l e a s t f o r t h i s example i t i s safe t o t o say t h a t the m o d i f i e d
76
substitute structure
analysis correctly predicted
This
the r e s u l t s of
i s a remarkable achievement
when the d i f f e r e n c e i n CPU time i s concerned.
(c)

Fig.
4.7 shows the data f o r the one-bay, s i x - s t o r y frame
t h a t was used as the t h i r d t e s t frame.
The width o f the frame
was 35 f e e t , and the s t o r y h e i g h t was constant a t 13 f e e t f o r

an o v e r a l l h e i g h t of 78 f e e t .
to the f i f t h
s t o r y a t 100 k i p s , but a t the top s t o r y i t was
reduced t o 90 k i p s .
second s t o r y .
a smaller
The f l o o r weight was constant up
The column s i z e s were decreased a t every
Beam s i z e was constant up t o the f i f t h
beam b e i n g used at the top f l o o r .
f l o o r , with
The moment of i n e r t i a
o f a l l the members were taken as approximately o n e - h a l f of the

v a l u e s based on gross s e c t i o n .
were reduced p r o g r e s s i v e l y
The y i e l d moments o f the columns
up the h e i g h t o f the frame.
The y i e l d
moments o f the beams were l a r g e , except a t the top, compared t o

those of the columns.
I t was hoped t h a t columns would r e c e i v e a
f a i r amount of damage.
E l a s t i c p e r i o d s were computed f o r a l l s i x modes and the
v a l u e s are shown i n Table 4.5.
The n a t u r a l p e r i o d s f o r the f i r s t
two modes were 1.1 sec. and 0.37 sec. r e s p e c t i v e l y .
The
smallest
p e r i o d was 0.0 8 sec.

The
in
m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e a n a l y s i s was c a r r i e d out
the u s u a l manner.
I t was necessary t o perform 9 6 i t e r a t i o n s
to achieve the convergence.
CPU time was 2.3 s e c .
The n a t u r a l
p e r i o d s o f the s u b s t i t u t e frame, as shown i n Table 4.5, were

considerably
longer than the p e r i o d s of the a c t u a l frame.
The
p e r i o d f o r the f i r s t mode was 1.85 sec. and the second mode p e r i o d

was 0.84 sec. U s u a l l y the n a t u r a l p e r i o d f o r the h i g h e s t mode o f
the s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e i s not much d i f f e r e n t from t h a t o f the
a c t u a l frame, but they were q u i t e d i f f e r e n t i n t h i s example.
former was 0.13 sec. and the l a t t e r was 0.0 8 sec.
ment p a t t e r n was a l s o q u i t e unique
The
The d i s p l a c e -
(See Table 4.6). The d i s p l a c e -
ment o f the second f l o o r was much g r e a t e r
than the f i r s t
floor.
There was a b i g d i f f e r e n c e between the f o u r t h - f l o o r displacement

and
the f i f t h - f l o o r
The
displacement.
damage r a t i o s a r e shown i n F i g . 4.8.
The a n a l y s i s
pre-
d i c t e d t h a t the damage r a t i o s would vary w i d e l y among the members.

The
column i n the f i r s t
respectively.
three
s t o r i e s were 2.5, 6.6, and 2.9
The l a r g e damage r a t i o f o r the second-story
column i s the reason f o r the b i g jump i n displacement between

the second and t h i r d f l o o r .
Two columns, the one i n the f o u r t h
s t o r y and the one i n the s i x t h s t o r y , d i d not y i e l d .
A large
i n e l a s t i c deformation was p r e d i c t e d i n the f i f t h - s t o r y column

w i t h a damage r a t i o o f 16.6.
The f i r s t - f l o o r beam had a damage
r a t i o o f 1.5, i n d i c a t i n g a small amount of i n e l a s t i c

The
beams on the next three
f l o o r s d i d not y i e l d .
the f i f t h and s i x t h f l o o r s were given

and
deformation.
The beams on
l a r g e damage r a t i o s o f 9.5
6.8 r e s p e c t i v e l y .
Response h i s t o r i e s of the frame were computed by the non-
l i n e a r dynamic a n a l y s i s program, u s i n g the f i r s t

f o u r earthquake r e c o r d s .
The time increment f o r numerical
g r a t i o n was s e t a t 0.004 sec.

The
Fig.
20 s e c . of the
inte-
The average CPU time was 42.6 s e c .
damage r a t i o s f o r i n d i v i d u a l earthquake motions a r e shown i n

4.9.
E l Centro EW motion produced by f a r the worst
result.
78
The
damage due t o other motions were s i m i l a r t o each o t h e r i n
magnitude.
In
E l Centro EW motion a l l the members except the t o p - s t o r y
column s u f f e r e d severe damage and the f l o o r displacements were

l a r g e , as shown i n Table 4,6.
the f i r s t
story.
f i v e s t o r i e s ranged
Damage r a t i o s o f the columns i n

from 6.3 t o 14.4 i n the f i r s t
The t h i r d - s t o r y column was a l s o damaged badly w i t h a
damage r a t i o o f over 10.
A l l the beams experienced a l a r g e
amount o f i n e l a s t i c deformation, w i t h damage r a t i o s ranging
from
6.3 to 10.8, w i t h the h i g h e s t v a l u e i n the f i f t h - f l o o r beam.

El
Centro NS motion a l l s i x columns y i e l d e d .
r a t i o was 1.3 and the h i g h e s t was 5.2.

f o u r t h and f i f t h
All
In
The s m a l l e s t damage
The columns on the t h i r d ,
s t o r i e s were damaged more than the o t h e r t h r e e .
the beams a l s o y i e l d e d .
The damage r a t i o s i n c r e a s e d up the
h e i g h t of the b u i l d i n g except a t the f i f t h
f l o o r where the damage
r a t i o o f the beam was the h i g h e s t a t 8.1.
The displacements were
s m a l l compared t o those found i n E l Centro EW motion.

placement o f the f i r s t
f l o o r was p a r t i c u l a r l y
The d i s -
s m a l l (See Table
4.6).
In
T a f t S69E motion every member o f the frame y i e l d e d .
Among the columns those i n the f i r s t
four s t o r i e s r e c e i v e d the
most damage, with damage r a t i o s about s i x .
The damage r a t i o s o f
the beams on the f i r s t three f l o o r s were approximately

at
about 3.5.
the same
The other three were damaged t o a g r e a t e r extent.
The damage r a t i o o f the f i f t h - f l o o r beam was the h i g h e s t a t 9.5,

w h i l e the other two beams had damage r a t i o s o f about seven.
i n c r e a s e i n displacements was q u i t e uniform i n the f i r s t
floors.
The
four
T a f t N21E motion r e s u l t e d i n q u i t e a d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n
79
of
Most of the damage i n the columns was
concen-
t r a t e d i n the second-story column and the t h i r d - s t o r y column w i t h

damage r a t i o s of 7.9
and
6.6
respectively.
the other f o u r columns were s m a l l .

c o n c e n t r a t e d i n the f i r s t
were 5.5
and
3.2.
two
The
The
damage r a t i o s o f
damage i n the beams
was
f l o o r beams, where the damage r a t i o s
The other f o u r beams escaped with minor damage.
The displacements
above the t h i r d f l o o r d i d not i n c r e a s e s i g n i -
ficantly.
The average displacements
damage r a t i o s i n F i g . 4.8.
are shown i n Table 4.6
and
average
They were very d i f f e r e n t from the
f i g u r e s computed by the m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e a n a l y s i s .
The
displacement
p a t t e r n s were q u i t e d i f f e r e n t .
The
prediction
by the m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e a n a l y s i s r e s u l t e d i n an
underestimate
of the displacements
p r e d i c t i o n of damage r a t i o s was
of the f i r s t
a l s o poor.
four f l o o r s .
The damage was
c o n c e n t r a t e d i n a p a r t i c u l a r column or a beam, but was

over the whole s t r u c t u r e .
The
not
spread
The m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e
method f a i l e d i n t h i s t e s t frame.
(d)

The
3-bay, 6-story frame shown i n F i g . 4.10
f o u r t h t e s t frame.
Each bay was
constant a t 11 f t .
A weight of 200
story.
2 4 f t . wide and
k i p s was
was
story height
was
c o n c e n t r a t e d a t each
Members s i z e s were uniform along the h e i g h t .
24 i n . by 24 i n . f o r columns and 18 i n . by
used as the
They were
30 i n . f o r beams.
h a l f of the moment o f i n e r t i a of the gross s e c t i o n was

compute the i n i t i a l s t i f f n e s s of columns, and one
One
used to
t h i r d f o r beams.
In t h i s example a l l the columns were intended to remain e l a s t i c .
80
For t h i s purpose the s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method was used t o
compute design moments.
These moments were used as a guide t o
e s t a b l i s h the y i e l d moments.
The p e r i o d s are summarized i n Table 4.7.
The computed
p e r i o d s f o r the f i r s t two modes were 1.1 s e c . and 0.34 sec.

r e s p e c t i v e l y , w h i l e the p e r i o d f o r the h i g h e s t mode was 0.0 75
sec.
These e l a s t i c p e r i o d s were comparable t o those of the l a s t
t e s t frame.
The m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e a n a l y s i s was c a r r i e d out
i n the u s u a l manner; 16 i t e r a t i o n s were r e q u i r e d t o s a t i s f y the
convergence c r i t e r i o n .
V/6-II computer.
the f i r s t
The CPU time was 2.30 sec. on the Amdahl
As shown i n Table 4.7, the n a t u r a l p e r i o d s f o r
two modes were 1.66 sec. and 0.48 sec. r e s p e c t i v e l y ,
w h i l e the s h o r t e s t p e r i o d was 0.0 76 s e c .

of
The f i r s t
two p e r i o d s
the s u b s t i t u t e frame were much longer than the c o r r e s p o n d i n g
p e r i o d s of the e l a s t i c frame, but the other p e r i o d s were r e l a t i v e l y unchanged.
As f a r as the displacements,
4.8, were concerned,
the s e c o n d - f l o o r displacement was q u i t e
l a r g e compared t o the f i r s t - f l o o r displacement.

displacement
shown i n Table
from the f i f t h
The i n c r e a s e i n
f l o o r to the s i x t h f l o o r was s m a l l .
The r e l a t i v e displacement was q u i t e uniform f o r the o t h e r
floors,
the top d e f l e c t i o n b e i n g 8.8 i n .

Damage r a t i o s are shown i n F i g . 4.11.
Those of the columns
were roughly constant a t around 0.8; t h a t i s , the computed

moments o f a l l the columns were about 80% o f the y i e l d moments.
All
the y i e l d i n g took p l a c e i n the beams.
The beams i n the
e x t e r i o r bays had higher damage r a t i o s than those i n the i n t e r i o r

bay.
In both bays the bottom beams had the h i g h e s t damage r a t i o s .
81
They decreased a t an i n c r e a s i n g r a t e w i t h h e i g h t i n the frame.
For
the beams i n the e x t e r i o r bays the damage r a t i o s ranged
3.5 t o 4.5.
from
F o r those i n the i n t e r i o r bay they ranged from 2.0
to 2.7.
Response h i s t o r i e s of the frame t o the four
motions were computed.
i n each run.
sec.
The f i r s t
earthquake
15 sec. of r e c o r d s were used
Numerical i n t e g r a t i o n was performed every 0.002
and the response c a l c u l a t i o n was done a f t e r every f i v e
steps.
time
Each n o n l i n e a r dynamic a n a l y s i s was expensive, as i t
r e q u i r e d , on the average,
120 sec. o f CPU time.
A summary o f
r e s u l t s i s shown i n F i g . 4.12.
In E l Centro EW motion
yielded.
t h r e e o f the e x t e r i o r columns
They were the third.-, f o u r t h - and f i f t h - s t o r y columns
and t h e i r damage r a t i o s were about
1.5.
None o f the i n t e r i o r
columns y i e l d e d , but the maximum moments o f the t h r e e columns

were equal t o or j u s t below the y i e l d moments.
y i e l d e d t o some e x t e n t .
h i g h e s t damage r a t i o s .
A l l the beams
The s e c o n d - f l o o r beams r e c e i v e d the

The f i r s t - f l o o r beams and the t h i r d -
f l o o r beams were damaged t o the same extent as the s e c o n d - f l o o r

beams.
Damage r a t i o s decreased r a p i d l y w i t h h e i g h t above the
t h i r d story.
elastic.
The top beam i n the i n t e r i o r bay almost
remained
The top d e f l e c t i o n was 9.8 i n .
Response o f the frame t o E l Centro NS motion was moderate.

None o f the columns y i e l d e d with t h e i r damage r a t i o s r a n g i n g from
0.5 8 t o 0.96.
In both the i n t e r i o r bay and the e x t e r i o r bays the
h i g h e s t damage r a t i o was found i n the f i r s t - f l o o r beams.

3.2 f o r the i n t e r i o r bay and 5.0 f o r the e x t e r i o r bay.
damage r a t i o s decreased s t e a d i l y w i t h h e i g h t .
I t was
The
The top beam i n
82
the i n t e r i o r bay d i d not y i e l d .
The
The top d e f l e c t i o n was 6.3 i n .
f l o o r displacement d i d not i n c r e a s e much above the t h i r d -
story.
T a f t S69E motion was more severe than E l Centro NS
The columns on the f i f t h s t o r y y i e l d e d .
motion.
The damage r a t i o o f the
e x t e r i o r column was 1.5 and the i n t e r i o r column 1.1.
The maxi-
mum moments o f s e v e r a l columns were very c l o s e t o the y i e l d

moments.
In the e x t e r i o r bay the maximum damage r a t i o was 5.5
at the bottom beam.
The damage r a t i o s o f the beams on the next
t h r e e ' f l o o r s were about the same a t 4.8.

lowest damage r a t i o a t 2.8.
The top beam had the
The same t r e n d was found i n the
beams i n the i n t e r i o r bay, but the damage r a t i o s were s m a l l e r .

The h i g h e s t damage r a t i o was 3.5 and the lowest was 1.6.
The
displacement a t the top was 7.3 i n .

T a f t N21E motion produced
Centro NS motion.
s i m i l a r r e s u l t s t o those i n E l
A l l the columns remained
The damage r a t i o s ranged
from 0.58 t o 0.89.
columns were q u i t e f a r from y i e l d i n g .
i n the e l a s t i c
range.
The f i f t h - s t o r y
Damage r a t i o s o f the
beams decreased w i t h h e i g h t i n each bay.
In the e x t e r i o r bay
they were 4.4 a t the bottom and 1.0 a t the top.

bay they were 2.8 and 0.61 r e s p e c t i v e l y .
In the i n t e r i o r
The displacement o f
the top f l o o r was 5.4 i n . which was the s m a l l e s t f o r the f o u r

records.
The average
damage r a t i o s and displacements are shown i n
F i g . 4.11 and Table 4.8.
The p r e d i c t i o n by the m o d i f i e d sub-
s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method was compared w i t h the average v a l u e s o f

the four n o n l i n e a r a n a l y s i s r e s u l t s .
p r e d i c t e d reasonably w e l l .
Column damage r a t i o s were
Those o f the three e x t e r i o r columns
83
were s l i g h t l y underestimated, b u t they were not bad.
The damage
r a t i o s o f the beams on the f i r s t two f l o o r s were o v e r e s t i m a t e d .

Those on the top three f l o o r s were underestimated.
In more
g e n e r a l terms, the m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e a n a l y s i s pred i c t e d f a i r l y uniform damage r a t i o s i n the beams up the h e i g h t

of
the frame w i t h a s m a l l decrease towards the top f l o o r , but
the average
damage r a t i o s were h i g h e r a t the bottom and decreased
quite rapidly with height.
The p r e d i c t i o n was s t i l l
e s p e c i a l l y when the two top beams were excluded.

displacements were concerned,
up t o the t h i r d f l o o r .
reasonable,
As f a r as
the two methods agreed very w e l l
The m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e a n a l y s i s
overestimated the displacements above the t h i r d f l o o r , but the

d i f f e r e n c e was not s u b s t a n t i a l .
In t h i s example the m o d i f i e d
s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method worked reasonably w e l l .
(e)
Observations
Four t e s t frames were analyzed by the m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e
The r e s u l t s were compared w i t h those by the
n o n l i n e a r dynamic a n a l y s i s .
three-bay, t h r e e - s t o r y frame.
placements
The method worked very w e l l i n the

Average damage r a t i o s and d i s -
o f the four earthquake
motions agreed w i t h those pre-
d i c t e d i n the m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e a n a l y s i s .
The method
was l e s s s u c c e s s f u l i n the two examples, the two-bay, two-story

frame and the three-bay, s i x - s t o r y frame.
But i t was
still
p o s s i b l e t o o b t a i n good estimates o f damage r a t i o s and d i s p l a c e ments.

rapidly.
in
For these three frames damage r a t i o s converged
very
The d i f f e r e n c e i n the CPU time was enormous, e s p e c i a l l y
the three-bay, s i x - s t o r y frame.
When t h i s p o i n t i s taken
into
84
consideration,
i t i s reasonable to c l a s s i f y the r e s u l t s of these
three examples as
The
frame.
success.
method d i d not work w e l l f o r the s i n g l e - b a y ,
The
damage r a t i o s p r e d i c t e d by the method were q u i t e
d i f f e r e n t from those computed i n the n o n l i n e a r

I t should be p o i n t e d
that excessive
The m o d i f i e d
such badly
six-story
out t h a t the
frame was
y i e l d i n g took p l a c e
badly
i n every member i n the
s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method does not
designed s t r u c t u r e s .
designed
But
and
frame.
seem to work i n
at l e a s t the method was
to p r e d i c t t h a t the frame would behave very p o o r l y .
able
In p r a c t i c e
i t w i l l be r a r e t h a t such a s t r u c t u r e e x i s t s i n an area where a

strong earthquake i s l i k e l y to occur.
Most i m p o r t a n t l y ,
however,
i t must be observed t h a t the a c t u a l behaviour of t h i s
structure,
as determined by the f u l l
unpredict-
able.
That i s to say,
dynamic a n a l y s i s , was
truly
i t behaved d i f f e r e n t l y i n d i f f e r e n t e a r t h -
quakes, so i t i s not s u r p r i s i n g t h a t the m o d i f i e d

s t r u c t u r e method was
ily.
unable to p r e d i c t the behaviour s a t i s f a c t o r -
I t i s suspected t h a t a s t r u c t u r e i n which there
spread and
and
substitute
extensive
should,
unsafe, even i f damage r a t i o s
acceptable.
r e s u l t s found i n the two-bay, two-story frame and
three-bay, s i x - s t o r y frame may

modified
e x h i b i t t h i s type of behaviour
t h e r e f o r e , be c o n s i d e r e d
would be otherwise
The
y i e l d i n g may
i s wide-
be considered
frame were h i g h l y h y p o t h e t i c a l and
as t y p i c a l of
Considering
the
the
t h a t these
t h a t no p a r t i c u l a r e f f o r t
was
made to c o n t r o l the behaviour of the s t r u c t u r e , the method would

be
l i k e l y to work a t l e a s t as w e l l i n a r e a l s t r u c t u r e ,
behaviour of which i s l i k e l y t o be more c o n t r o l l e d .
the
85
Since the m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e a n a l y s i s i s so much
cheaper to run than the n o n l i n e a r
repeatedly
dynamic a n a l y s i s , i t can be used
t o see the e f f e c t o f m o d i f i c a t i o n s .
From the r e s u l t s
of such analyses a recommendation can be made on what steps can

be
taken to upgrade the performance o f a b u i l d i n g t o a s a t i s -
factory
level.
86
CHAPTER 5
FACTORS AFFECTING MODIFIED SUBSTITUTE

STRUCTURE METHOD
5.1
E f f e c t o f Higher Modes
Design Spectrum A i n Ref. 5 was

spectrum i n the p r e v i o u s chapter.
r e f e r e n c e s was
used as a smoothed response
Spectrum B from the same
d e r i v e d from the 8244 O r i o n , San Fernando
r e c o r d and i s shown i n F i g . 5.1.
Among the f o u r t e s t frames, the
3-bay, 6-story frame shown i n F i g . 4.10

frame was
19 71
was
s e l e c t e d and the
analyzed by the m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method
i n the same manner as b e f o r e , except t h a t Design Spectrum B

used as a smoothed response spectrum.
was
The m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e
method had worked reasonably w e l l f o r t h i s frame when Design

Spectrum A i n F i g . 2.5 was
was
used.
The purpose of t h i s
analysis
to see i f the method c o u l d work e q u a l l y w e l l f o r a d i f f e r e n t
type o f earthquake motion, r e p r e s e n t e d by a d i f f e r e n t
response
spectrum.
The p r o p e r t i e s of the t e s t frame were unchanged and the
a n a l y s i s was
carried
out w i t h the same assumptions as i n Chap. 4.
The maximum ground a c c e l e r a t i o n s was

new
taken as 0.5
g.
With the
response spectrum i t took 27 i t e r a t i o n s t o s a t i s f y the con-
vergence c r i t e r i o n s e t i n Chap. 4.
N a t u r a l p e r i o d s f o r the
a c t u a l frame and the s u b s t i t u t e frame are shown i n Table 5.1
and
87
displacements
i n Table 5.2.
Damage r a t i o s are shown i n F i g . 5.2.
Most of the i n e l a s t i c deformations

which y i e l d e d .
o c c u r r e d i n the beams, a l l of
Damage r a t i o s i n the beams i n a given bay
i n c r e a s e d w i t h h e i g h t up the frame.
Only the
second-story
columns y i e l d e d .
A n o n l i n e a r dynamic a n a l y s i s was
done, u s i n g the f i r s t
seconds of the 8244 Orion 19 71 r e c o r d to compute the

h i s t o r y of the frame.
a l i z e d at 0.5
Table 5.2
response
The maximum ground a c c e l e r a t i o n was
g as b e f o r e .
Maximum displacements
and damage r a t i o s i n F i g . 5.2.
The
20
norm-
are shown i n
r e s u l t s of the non-
l i n e a r a n a l y s i s were q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from those of the m o d i f i e d

substitute structure analysis.
i n the e x t e r i o r bay
A p l o t of damage r a t i o s f o r beams
i s shown i n F i g . 5.3.
I t i s c l e a r t h a t the
m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method g r o s s l y overestimated
damage r a t i o s of upper-story beams.
A s i m i l a r t r e n d was
the p r e v i o u s example, though i t was
much l e s s n o t i c e a b l e .
Although t h i s f i n d i n g was
made t o f i n d out the reason why
t e s t frame with t h i s response
the
seen i n
very d i s a p p o i n t i n g , an e f f o r t
was
the method f a i l e d t o work f o r the
spectrum.
The
f l o o r weights
of the
t e s t frame were changed t o see i f the n a t u r a l p e r i o d s of the

frame had any e f f e c t .
They were reduced
to 130 k i p s per f l o o r to decrease
from 2 00 k i p s per
the n a t u r a l p e r i o d s .
of the p r o p e r t i e s were the same as shown i n F i g . 4.10.
floor
The
rest
The modi-
f i e d s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e a n a l y s i s and the n o n l i n e a r dynamic

a n a l y s i s were c a r r i e d out i n an i d e n t i c a l manner.
Natural periods
of the a c t u a l frame and the s u b s t i t u t e frame are l i s t e d

5.3.
Displacements
i n the two
and damage r a t i o s i n F i g . 5.4.
i n Table
analyses are shown i n Table

The r e s u l t s of the two
5.4
analyses
88
agreed very w e l l t h i s time.
modified
all
The
displacements computed i n the
s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e a n a l y s i s were almost i d e n t i c a l at
l e v e l s to those i n the n o n l i n e a r
damage r a t i o s agreed very w e l l as shown i n F i g . 5.5

damage r a t i o s f o r beams i n the e x t e r i o r bay
y i e l d e d s l i g h t l y a t three
i n which
are p l o t t e d .
l o c a t i o n s i n the n o n l i n e a r
a n a l y s i s , though the m o d i f i e d
Beam
Columns
dynamic
s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method pre-
d i c t e d t h a t a l l the columns would remain i n the e l a s t i c

Nevertheless,
the
range.
column damage r a t i o s agreed very w e l l i n g e n e r a l .
Thus n a t u r a l p e r i o d s
d i d a f f e c t the accuracy of the
modified
substitute structure analysis.

There are two
ways to e x p l a i n why
the a n a l y s i s of
two
frames, i d e n t i c a l except f o r the f l o o r weights, r e s u l t e d i n

f a i l u r e i n one
case and
success i n another.
One
a t i o n i s t h a t an a c t u a l response spectrum i s very

many peaks and
troughs.
rugged w i t h
When a smoothed spectrum i s used,
response a c c e l e r a t i o n at a c e r t a i n p e r i o d may
w h i l e t h a t at another p e r i o d may
periods
p o s s i b l e explan-
be
the
overestimated,
be underestimated.
The
natural
of the s u b s t i t u t e frame i n the f i r s t case were such t h a t
c o r r e c t response a c c e l e r a t i o n s were not obtained

response spectrum.
of h i g h e r modes.
responses due
The
The
other
explanation
from a smoothed
i s based on the e f f e c t
shape of a response spectrum i s such that
t o higher modes p l a y a more prominent r o l e f o r a
s t r u c t u r e with longer p e r i o d s .
For a t y p i c a l s t r u c t u r e
the
longest p e r i o d , and p o s s i b l e the second l o n g e s t p e r i o d , may
cor-
respond to the downward s l o p i n g p a r t o f the response spectrum.

As
the n a t u r a l p e r i o d s
of a s u b s t i t u t e frame i n c r e a s e ,
a c c e l e r a t i o n s f o r the lower modes become s m a l l e r and
response
less
89
s i g n i f i c a n t compared to those f o r the h i g h e r modes.
Since the
modal damping r a t i o s of s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e s decrease f o r

h i g h e r modes, h i g h e r modes a f f e c t response
c a l c u l a t i o n s even more.
T h e r e f o r e , i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t the s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method
overestimates the e f f e c t of h i g h e r modes and t h a t t h i s p o i n t
shows up more c l e a r l y i n a s t r u c t u r e w i t h l o n g e r p e r i o d s .
In order to see which e x p l a n a t i o n was
t r u e , a t e s t frame w i t h s h o r t e r p e r i o d s was
o r i g i n a l smoothed response
i n F i g . 2.5 was
was
repeated.
reduced
used.
The
spectrum; t h a t i s , Design Spectrum A
f l o o r weight of the 3-bay, 6-story frame
was
The response h i s t o r i e s of the frame
motions were a l s o computed by the n o n l i n e a r
N a t u r a l p e r i o d s of the a c t u a l frame
and the s u b s t i t u t e frame are i n Table 5.5
Fig.
i n S e c t i o n 4.2(d)
to 130 k i p s a t a l l l e v e l s , but the r e s t of the p r o p e r t i e s
f o u r earthquake
listed
analyzed u s i n g the
The a n a l y s i s procedure
were as shown i n F i g . 4.10.

to
more l i k e l y t o be
i n Table 5.6.
5.7.
and displacements
Damage r a t i o s are shown i n F i g . 5.6
are
and
Average damage r a t i o s from the f o u r n o n l i n e a r analyses
agreed w e l l w i t h those i n the m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e analysis.
B e t t e r agreement was
observed
i n the response
of upper
s t o r i e s f o r t h i s frame than the t e s t frame used i n the

chapter.
Thus, although the d i f f e r e n c e was
last
l e s s apparent
i n the
case of Design Spectrum A, the frame with s h o r t e r p e r i o d s again

worked b e t t e r .
T h i s seems to support the second e x p l a n a t i o n .
d i f f e r e n c e between a smoothed response
response
spectrum
may
a f f e c t response
spectrum
Although
the
and an a c t u a l
computations
i n the modi-
f i e d s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method, the r e s u l t s d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s
90
s e c t i o n favours the argument t h a t the m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method works b e t t e r f o r a s t r u c t u r e w i t h s h o r t e r p e r i o d s .
Or c o n v e r s e l y , the method overestimates
h i g h e r modes.
accordance
the c o n t r i b u t i o n from
The s u b s t i t u t e damping r a t i o i s c a l c u l a t e d i n
w i t h equation
(2.20) i n Chapter
2, and modal damping
r a t i o s are computed on the assumption t h a t each element c o n t r i butes
t o the modal damping i n p r o p o r t i o n t o the s t r a i n energy
a s s o c i a t e d with i t i n each mode shape.
T h i s has the e f f e c t o f
making modal damping r a t i o s h i g h e r i n the lower modes.
In terms
o f energy i t i m p l i e s t h a t lower modes d i s s i p a t e more energy.

T h i s i s probably t r u e , but when response
c a l c u l a t i o n s are made,
t h i s works a g a i n s t the o r i g i n a l i n t e n t i o n .
Since
response
a c c e l e r a t i o n s i n h i g h e r modes w i t h s m a l l e r damping r a t i o s a r e
much g r e a t e r , responses
i n h i g h e r modes are probably g i v e n more
weight than they should have.
When the response a c c e l e r a t i o n
i s c a l c u l a t e d from the design s p e c t r a i n Ref. 5, lower
damping
r a t i o s do i n f a c t have a p r o p o r t i o n a l l y g r e a t e r e f f e c t ;
this
should have the e f f e c t o f s l i g h t l y de-emphasizing h i g h e r modes,

which tend t o have lower damping, but the evidence
here i n d i c a t e s
t h a t t h i s e f f e c t should be i n c r e a s e d t o de-emphasize them

further.
still
91
5.2
Spectrum
A smoothed response spectrum d e v i a t e s

spectrum a t many p l a c e s .
way
i s minimized, a s i z -
occur a t c e r t a i n p e r i o d s .
This p o i n t
o f t e n when a smoothed response spectrum i s d e r i v e d

one response spectrum.
response
Although the curve i s drawn i n such a
t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e i n the two s p e c t r a
able d i f f e r e n c e may
from a r e a l
arises
from more than
R e c a l l t h a t i n the examples i n Chapter 4
the damage due t o E l Centro EW motion was
c o n s i s t e n t l y h i g h e r than
t h a t a n t i c i p a t e d i n the m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e
structure
analysis.
On the o t h e r hand, the response h i s t o r i e s of t e s t frames to T a f t

S69E motion agreed reasonably w e l l w i t h the m o d i f i e d
structure
analysis.
These r e s u l t s may
substitute
p a r t l y be caused by the
d i s c r e p a n c y between a smoothed response spectrum and an

response
actual
spectrum.
A computer program was
used to generate the response
spectra
14
f o r E l Centro EW motion and T a f t S69E motion.
between a smoothed spectrum and E l Centro EW
t r a t e d i n F i g . 5.8.
The two s p e c t r a
The
difference
spectrum i s i l l u s -
are reasonably s i m i l a r in.
shape and magnitude at 2% damping r a t i o except a t a few

where peaks i n the a c t u a l spectrum are c o n s i d e r a b l y
smoothed spectrum.
places
above the
At 10% damping r a t i o , however, E l Centro
EW
spectrum i s c o n s i s t e n t l y above the smoothed spectrum f o r a p e r i o d

greater
than 0.4
sec.
The response a c c e l e r a t i o n
spectrum i s 50% to 100% g r e a t e r
from the a c t u a l
than the smoothed spectrum.
appears t h a t the b i g d i f f e r e n c e i n the two s p e c t r a

damping r a t i o s e x p l a i n s
It
at high
i n a q u a l i t a t i v e manner the d i s c r e p a n c y
i n the r e s u l t s of the m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e
structure
analysis
and
and
The smoothed response spectrum
T a f t S69E spectrum are p l o t t e d i n F i g . 5.9.
F o r Both damping
r a t i o s the smoothed spectrum i s reasonably c l o s e t o the a c t u a l

spectrum.
This seems t o e x p l a i n q u a l i t a t i v e l y why the r e s u l t s of
the two a n a l y s i s were not very f a r apart.

From these o b s e r v a t i o n s
i t seemed p o s s i b l e t h a t a b e t t e r
estimate o f damage r a t i o s and displacement could be o b t a i n e d i f

an a c t u a l response spectrum was used i n s t e a d o f the smoothed
spectrum.
Response a c c e l e r a t i o n s were computed a t a short
ment o f p e r i o d s
incre-
f o r s e v e r a l damping r a t i o s ranging from 3 = 0.0
to 8 = 0.20 from E l Centro EW r e c o r d

t o t a l 50 p e r i o d s
In
f o r both cases were chosen t o complete a t a b l e
of response s p e c t r a .
l i z e d a t 0.5 g.
and T a f t S69E r e c o r d .
The maximum ground a c c e l e r a t i o n was norma-
The m o d i f i e d
s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e a n a l y s i s was
performed i n the same way as b e f o r e except f o r the f o l l o w i n g

change.
The s p e c t r a l a c c e l e r a t i o n was read d i r e c t l y o r i n t e r -
polated
from the t a b l e .
then the damping.
The p e r i o d was i n t e r p o l a t e d f i r s t and
Suppose t h a t the p e r i o d , T, and the damping
8, were known and t h a t the s p e c t r a l a c c e l e r a t i o n
ratio,
ponding to t h i s p e r i o d and damping was t o be computed.

periods,
Then two damping r a t i o s ,
8^ and
were
found from the t a b l e such t h a t 3 was between 3-^ and Q^linear interpolation, spectral accelerations
ar
Two
and 1^> were l o c a t e d i n the t a b l e such t h a t T l a y
between T^ and 1^
at 3 j
corres-
*d T at
were c a l c u l a t e d .
Using a
corresponding t o T
A l i n e a r i n t e r p o l a t i o n was
again performed t o compute the a c c e l e r a t i o n a t 6.

Several
frames were analyzed by the m o d i f i e d
substitute
s t r u c t u r e method, using E l Centro EW spectrum and T a f t S69E
spectrum.
Although the response s p e c t r a were no l o n g e r smooth,
the damage r a t i o converged.
In o t h e r v/ords, i t was p o s s i b l e t o
f i n d a s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e such t h a t the computed moments were

equal t o the y i e l d moments f o r a l l the members which y i e l d e d .
The number o f i t e r a t i o n s
i n c r e a s e d i n many cases.
I t was found
that the o v e r c o r r e c t i o n s o f damage r a t i o s r e s u l t e d , i n some cases,

i n u n s t a b l e behaviour; the damage r a t i o s o s c i l l a t e d from one
i t e r a t i o n t o another.
The
3-bay, 6-story frame i n F i g . 4.10, w i t h f l o o r weights
taken as 130 k i p s a t a l l l e v e l s , was analyzed by the m o d i f i e d

s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method, u s i n g E l Centro EW spectrum.
i t e r a t i o n s were necessary t o achieve convergence.
response spectrum i t took 13 i t e r a t i o n s
convergence
criterion.
The r e s u l t s
With a smoothed
t o s a t i s f y the i d e n t i c a l
from t h i s a n a l y s i s were com-
pared w i t h those from the p r e v i o u s a n a l y s e s .

are
Twenty
summarized i n Table 5.7, the displacements i n Table 5.8, and
the damage r a t i o s
i n F i g . 5.10.
The n a t u r a l p e r i o d s o f the sub-
s t i t u t e frame were longer w i t h E l Centro EW spectrum than with the

smoothed spectrum.
The displacements agreed a l i t t l e b e t t e r w i t h
those from the n o n l i n e a r dynamic a n a l y s i s .
were h i g h e r w i t h the r e a l response spectrum than w i t h the smoothed

response spectrum.
They were c l o s e r t o the damage r a t i o s
found
i n the n o n l i n e a r dynamic a n a l y s i s , but the m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e

s t r u c t u r e method s t i l l underestimated the damage r a t i o s a t lower
l e v e l s and overestimated those at upper l e v e l s .
The r e s u l t s
firmed the o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t the smoothed spectrum was
con-
unconserva-
t i v e f o r E l Centro EW motion.
The a n a l y s i s was repeated, u s i n g T a f t S69E spectrum.
It
took 14 i t e r a t i o n s f o r the damage r a t i o s t o converge,

i t e r a t i o n s were r e q u i r e d w i t h the smooth response
while 13
spectrum.
The
comparison o f n a t u r a l p e r i o d s i s shown i n Table 5.7, the d i s placements i n Table 5.9, and damage r a t i o s i n F i g . 5.11.
same t r e n d observed
i n the a n a l y s i s w i t h E l Centro EW
The
spectrum
was present, but the two m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e analyses

d i d not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y .
response
spectrum
I t i n d i c a t e s t h a t the smoothed
r e p r e s e n t e d T a f t S69E motion w e l l .
with the n o n l i n e a r dynamic a n a l y s i s , the r e a l response

produced
Compared
spectrum
s l i g h t l y b e t t e r r e s u l t s than the smoothed spectrum, but
the improvement was m a r g i n a l .

The same frame, except t h a t the f l o o r weight was s e t a t
200 k i p s , was next t e s t e d .
i n S e c t i o n 4.2(d).
T h i s i s the i d e n t i c a l frame used
The a n a l y s i s w i t h E l Centro EW spectrum
done i n the same manner.
The p e r i o d s , displacements,
was
and damage
r a t i o s are shown i n Table 5.10, Table 5.11, and F i g . 5.12 respectively.
T h i r t y - t h r e e i t e r a t i o n s were r e q u i r e d , w h i l e i t took 16
i t e r a t i o n s w i t h the smoothed spectrum.

disappointing.
The r e s u l t s were very
The m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method with
E l Centro EW spectrum
badly overestimated the displacements and
the damage r a t i o s , e s p e c i a l l y f o r the beams.
The displacements
were too l a r g e a t a l l ; l e v e l s , but the d e v i a t i o n from the nonl i n e a r dynamic a n a l y s i s r e s u l t s became p r o g r e s s i v e l y l a r g e r a t

upper l e v e l s .
Some y i e l d i n g i n the columns was observed, b u t
those columns d i d not y i e l d i n the n o n l i n e a r a n a l y s i s w h i l e o t h e r s

did.
The beam damage r a t i o s i n c r e a s e d w i t h h e i g h t when E l Centro
EW spectrum was used.

t r e n d was
observed.
But i n the n o n l i n e a r a n a l y s i s the o p p o s i t e
95
The a n a l y s i s was
repeated w i t h T a f t S69E spectrum.
number o f i t e r a t i o n s was
23, an i n c r e a s e of 7 i t e r a t i o n s over the
a n a l y s i s w i t h the smoothed spectrum.

i n Table 5.10,
The
Table 5.12,
The r e s u l t s are summarized
and F i g . 5.13.
They compared more f a v -
o r a b l y t h i s time w i t h those from the n o n l i n e a r a n a l y s i s .
The mod-
i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method w i t h T a f t S6 9E spectrum, a g a i n ,
overestimated the displacements
and damage r a t i o s , but not as badly
as i n the l a s t example.
The r e s u l t s f o r the two
r e a l response
spectrum
t e s t frames i n d i c a t e t h a t u s i n g a
does not guarantee
a b e t t e r estimate of
damage r a t i o s and displacements.
T h i s o b s e r v a t i o n was
i n the analyses o f o t h e r frames.
A marginal improvement
achieved w i t h the use of a r e a l response
spectrum
imate of damage r a t i o s r e s u l t e d i n some cases.

i f any, was
so s m a l l and the i n c r e a s e i n computation
u s e f u l t o make a smoothed response

response
spectrum
spectrum
was
w h i l e a bad
The
i t would not be p r a c t i c a l t o employ t h i s approach.
confirmed
est-
improvement,
so b i g t h a t
I t i s more
c l o s e r t o the
real
and perform the m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e
a n a l y s i s w i t h the smoothed spectrum.
The d i f f e r e n c e i n r e s u l t
between t h i s a n a l y s i s and the n o n l i n e a r dynamic a n a l y s i s should

be regarded as an i n h e r e n t e r r o r due
this
t o the approximate nature of
analysis.
I t must, of course
earthquake
either.
, a l s o be borne i n mind t h a t the f u t u r e
w i l l not have a r e c o r d i d e n t i c a l to those of the p a s t ,
Thus the smoothed spectrum
r e p r e s e n t s the f u t u r e e a r t h -
quake j u s t as w e l l as does the " r e a l " spectrum

quake.
from a p a s t e a r t h -
However, the f o r e g o i n g d i s c u s s i o n does i n d i c a t e t h a t one
source of " e r r o r " i n the m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method l a y

i n the smoothing and averaging of the spectrum.
96
5.3
Guidelines
f o r Use o f Method
As was i l l u s t r a t e d i n the example i n Chapter 4, the modif i e d s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e works very w e l l f o r some s t r u c t u r e s ,

w h i l e i t works p o o r l y
f o r others.
An e f f o r t was made to estab-
l i s h the c o n d i t i o n s which must be s a t i s f i e d i n order t o apply the

method s u c c e s s f u l l y f o r a n a l y s i s o f e x i s t i n g b u i l d i n g s .
The
author, however, has so f a r been unable to s e t f i r m g u i d e l i n e s .

More r e s e a r c h
i s necessary t o achieve t h i s g o a l ; t h e r e f o r e , the
f o l l o w i n g comments should be i n t e r p r e t e d with

The modified
caution.
s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method i s an e x t e n t i o n o f
the s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method.
Therefore,
the success of the
former depends g r e a t l y on the success o f the l a t t e r .
As
described
i n Chapter 2, c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s must be s a t i s f i e d i n order f o r

the method t o work.
They are a l s o a p p l i c a b l e t o the m o d i f i e d
s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method w i t h the e x c e p t i o n
The p r e l i m i n a r y
of one c o n d i t i o n .
r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t the damage r a t i o s o f beams
i n a given bay or the damage r a t i o s of columns on a given
axis
need not be the same.

The modified
small s t r u c t u r e s .
s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method works w e l l f o r
The 2-bay, 2-story
frame and the 3-bay, 3-
s t o r y frame i n the l a s t chapter can be used t o support t h i s argument.
Although t h e i r member p r o p e r t i e s
and strengths
were not
very uniform, the r e s u l t s agreed very w e l l w i t h those from the

nonlinear
I t appears t h a t any s t r u c t u r e up t o
f o u r - s t o r y h i g h can be analyzed by the m o d i f i e d
substitute struc-
ture method q u i t e s u c e s s f u l l y .
Some c a u t i o n
i s necessary t o i n t e r p r e t the r e s u l t s f o r
medium-rise s t r u c t u r e s .
Although
the method works reasonably
w e l l f o r most o f the s t r u c t u r e , there are i n s t a n c e s when i t produces erroneous
results.
When a s t r u c t u r e i s badly
underdesigned
f o r a given ground motion and y i e l d i n g takes p l a c e i n almost a l l

the members, the m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method may work
very p o o r l y .
The 6-story frame i n Chapter
4 i s a good example.
Though the method can show q u a l i t a t i v e l y t h a t a s t r u c t u r e i s

behaving
p o o r l y , the damage r a t i o s and displacements may be q u i t e
d i f f e r e n t from the n o n l i n e a r dynamic a n a l y s i s .
I n t u i t i o n should
be used t o judge whether the r e s u l t s are r e a s o n a b l e .
In t h i s
par-
t i c u l a r 6-story frame, however, i t was noted t h a t the " a c t u a l "

behaviour was e r r a t i c :
the dynamic a n a l y s i s l e d t o a very
f e r e n t answer from the d i f f e r e n t earthquake
records.
dif-
Thus one
reason why the m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method was unable t o

g i v e a good answer was t h a t t h e r e was no " r e a l " answer.
One may
conclude t h a t when there are few l o a d paths and e x t e n s i v e y i e l d i n g the behaviour o f the s t r u c t u r e i n f u t u r e earthquakes i s
e s s e n t i a l l y u n p r e d i c a b l e , and the m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e
method w i l l , of course,
fail.
As long as the damage r a t i o s are not very h i g h , say, l e s s

than f i v e i n any member, the r e s u l t s can be r e c e i v e d with
dence.
confi-
The method seems t o work b e t t e r when y i e l d i n g i s concen-
t r a t e d i n beams.
The method may overestimate the damage r a t i o s
f o r upper-story beams, but they are u s u a l l y not very f a r from

those i n the n o n l i n e a r a n a l y s i s .
A l l o f the 3-bay, 6-story
frames can be used as evidence f o r t h i s argument.
A multi-bay
s t r u c t u r e seems t o work b e t t e r w i t h the method.

H i g h - r i s e s t r u c t u r e s , g r e a t e r than 10 s t o r i e s ,
say, have
98
not been t e s t e d .
They can be analyzed
by the m o d i f i e d
s t r u c t u r e method a t a r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l c o s t .
substitute
converge q u i t e r a p i d l y , but t h e i r accuracy has not been compared

w i t h the n o n l i n e a r
dynamic a n a l y s i s , mainly because of h i g h
i n v o l v e d i n such an a n a l y s i s .
I t i s hoped t h a t the method
as w e l l f o r h i g h - r i s e s t r u c t u r e s as i t does f o r medium-rise
structures.
cost
works
99
5.4
Further Studies
The
m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method was
proposed f o r
a n a l y s i s of e x i s t i n g r e i n f o r c e d c o n c r e t e s t r u c t u r e s .
s i s of the r e s e a r c h
by
the author was
placed
of the procedure f o r the proposed method.

t e s t frames were analyzed and
nonlinear
on the
empha-
development
Although a s e r i e s of
the r e s u l t s were compared w i t h
dynamic a n a l y s i s , the
f i n d i n g s are s t i l l
More researches are needed to e s t a b l i s h the t r u e

and
The
the
preliminary.
effectiveness
the l i m i t a t i o n s of the m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method.
Some of the areas f o r f u r t h e r s t u d i e s
are d i s c u s s e d
in this
section.
A multi-bay, h i g h - r i s e s t r u c t u r e has
not been t e s t e d ,
and
the performance of the method f o r such a frame i s not known p r e cisely.
The
r e s u l t s from the m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e
a n a l y s i s should be
Though the
compared w i t h the n o n l i n e a r
c o s t f o r the n o n l i n e a r
structure
a n a l y s i s w i l l be
undoubtedly
h i g h , the c a r e f u l c h o i c e of an earthquake r e c o r d may
h e l p keep
it
at a reasonable l e v e l .
should
be
tested.
Actual
More r e a l i s t i c
r e i n f o r c e d c o n c r e t e s t r u c t u r e s may
t e s t frames f o r t h i s purpose.
h e l p s e t up b e t t e r g u i d e l i n e s
it
structures
The
be
also
used
r e s u l t s of such a n a l y s i s
as
will
f o r a p p l i c a b i l i t y of the method as
stands at the present time.

An
cedure.
attempt should a l s o be made to improve the present proThe
method becomes more f l e x i b l e and,
p r a c t i c a l i f some of the r e s t r i c t i o n s are
hence, more
removed.
For
example,
at present a s i n g l e value f o r the y i e l d moment i s a s s i g n e d

each member.
I f the moment c a p a c i t i e s of' the
two
end
to
of a member
100
d i f f e r e n t , the method cannot be a p p l i e d c o r r e c t l y without a
able s i m p l i f i c a t i o n i n the modeling of such a member.
procedure should be m o d i f i e d
to handle t h i s case.
The
suitcurrent
It i s also
d e s i r a b l e to i n c l u d e the e f f e c t of a x i a l f o r c e s i n the a n a l y s i s .
Behaviour of columns can be estimated more p r e c i s e l y i f such modif i c a t i o n s are made.
As was
d i s c u s s e d b r i e f l y i n the f i r s t
t e r , the present
s e c t i o n of t h i s chap-
method f o r computation of "smeared" or average
modal damping r a t i o s may
not be the b e s t way:
e f f e c t o f higher modes are overemphasized.
i t appears t h a t
Perhaps a new
way
the
to
combine the damping r a t i o f o r each member can be developed to
give
more r e a l i s t i c modal damping r a t i o s .

So
f a r only r e i n f o r c e d concrete
frame s t r u c t u r e s were t e s t e d .
In p r a c t i c e , i t i s very r a r e to f i n d r e i n f o r c e d concrete
t u r e s without shear w a l l s .
The
a p p l i c a b i l i t y of the m o d i f i e d
s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method to shear w a l l s should be

I f the present
d i f f e r e n t way
to be
strucsub-
investigated.
method d i d not work w e l l w i t h shear w a l l s , a

of modifying s t i f f n e s s and
damping r a t i o s would have
developed.
I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t the m o d i f i e d
s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method
can be a l t e r e d to handle s t r u c t u r e s made o f other m a t e r i a l s ,

as s t e e l .
I f s u i t a b l e r u l e s to modify s t i f f n e s s and
such
damping
r a t i o s are developed f o r s t e e l s t r u c t u r e s , the method can be
used
i n a s i m i l a r manner f o r a n a l y s i s of e x i s t i n g s t e e l b u i l d i n g s .
It
probably i s not very d i f f i c u l t to study the h y s t e r e s i s loop of a

s t e e l s t r u c t u r e a f t e r s e v e r a l c y c l e s of i n e l a s t i c
The
s t i f f n e s s and
damping p r o p e r t i e s may
s i m i l a r manner to t h a t used by Gulkan and
deformation.
be determined i n a
Sozen.
101
CHAPTER 6
The
CONCLUSION
m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method has been presented
f o r determining damage r a t i o s i n an e x i s t i n g r e i n f o r c e d
building.
and
These values are r e q u i r e d
concrete
f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g the l o c a t i o n
extent of damage which would occur i n an earthquake. I t i s
obvious t h a t they cannot be p r e d i c t e d

f u t u r e seismic
p r e c i s e l y f o r uncertain
events; thus, i n s p i t e o f i t s i m p r e c i s i o n , the
method may c o n s t i t u t e a u s e f u l p a r t o f the r a t i o n a l r e t r o f i t

procedure.
At present i t i s not always p o s s i b l e t o p r e d i c t the accuracy o f the m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e a n a l y s i s , but the method
appears to work w e l l f o r s t r u c t u r e s
e x t e n s i v e and widespread.
i n which y i e l d i n g i s not
In a d d i t i o n the p r e l i m i n a r y
i n d i c a t e t h a t i t works b e t t e r
findings
i f y i e l d i n g occurs mainly i n beams.
There i s an i n d i c a t i o n t h a t the e f f e c t o f h i g h e r modes i s overemphasized.
I t i s hoped t h a t
further research
would c l a r i f y
requirements f o r s u c c e s s f u l a p p l i c a t i o n o f the method.

Although not p e r f e c t e d ,
the m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e
method o f f e r s a cheap and e f f e c t i v e way o f e s t i m a t i n g

r a t i o s or d u c t i l i t y
activity.
damage
demands under one o r more l e v e l o f s e i s m i c
Though l e s s p r e c i s e ,
scale nonlinear
structure
i t i s much cheaper than a f u l l -
dynamic a n a l y s i s and, as an a d d i t i o n a l advantage,
an a n a l y s i s can be done on a smaller
s i z e d computer.
Its
102
advantage over a l i n e a r e l a s t i c a n a l y s i s i s t h a t i t takes
of the r e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f f o r c e s as members begin t o y i e l d .
s l i g h t l y h i g h e r c o s t o f computation
i s amply rewarded w i t h
account
A
this
a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n on i n e l a s t i c behaviour o f a s t r u c t u r e ,
which cannot be o b t a i n e d by a c o n v e n t i o n a l modal a n a l y s i s .
103
N a t u r a l P e r i o d s i n sec
Smeared Damping R a t i o s
Mode
Computed
10-Story
Frame
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
3.1807
0.8763
0.3945
0.2172
0.1358
0.0930
0.0681
0.0531
0.0442
0.0397
3.18
0.87
0 . 39
0.22
0 .14
0.093
0.068
0.053
0.044
0.040
0.1061
0.0805
0.0525
0.0383
0.0312
0.0272
0.0244
0.0224
0.0211
0.0204
0.106
0.081
0.053
0.038
0.032
0.027
0.024
0.022
0.021
0.020
5-Story
Frame
1
2
3
4
5
1.5868
0.4101
0.1751
0.0967
0.0670
1.58
0.41
0. 18
0.097
0 . 067
0.0991
0.0680
0.0409
0.0283
0.0218
0.099
0.068
0.041
0.028
0.022
3-Story
Frame
1
2
3
0.8525
0.1883
0.0784
0 .85
0 .19
0.078
0.0852
0.0454
0.0245
0 .086
0.045
0.025
S & S*
Computed
S & S*
* Shibata and Sozen

Table 2.1
N a t u r a l P e r i o d s and Smeared Damping R a t i o s f o r

3-, 5-, and 10-Story Frames
104
Damage R a t i o s
El
Centro
EW
El
Centro
NS
T a f t S69E
T a f t N21E
Average
2.0
4.4
4.8
2.5
6.9
1.0
1.1
1.8
0.96
4.0
0.85
0.90
0.97
0.91
0.94
0.81
0.72
0.90
0.89
0.92
0.98
1.1
0.90
0.88
0.97
0.95
0.98
0.95
0.90
0.90
0.95
1.4
1.1
0.92
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.7
0 . 96
0.92
1.2
2.0
1.9
1.3
2.5
0.98
0. 99
1. 35
0.93
1.7
6.5
7.6
8.3
8.1
8.6
9.3
9.8
9.9
9.9
9.9
4.1
4.3
4.6
4.7
4.7
4.8
4.7
4.4
4.1
3.9
5.0
5.0
4.9
4.5
4.1
4.2
4.1
3.9
3.6
3.4
4.9
5.0
5.1
5.1
5.0
4.8
4.6
4.2
4.0
4.0
5.1
5.5
5.7
5.6
5.6
5.8
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.3
1.1
3.9
0.97
1.1
1.0
0.98
0.86
0.97
1.1
0.89
0.87
0.84
0.89
0.93
0.87
0.84
0.70
0.78
0.88
0.85
0.95
1.6
0.90
1.0
0.90
5.4
7.1
7.1
6.7
6.7
4.8
4.6
4.7
4.4
4.2
4.4
4.4
4.1
4.1
3.9
3.7
3.3
3.2
2.8
2.4
4.6
4.8
4.8
4.5
4.3
. 1
fe 0 2
u 3
>i
0.95
0.89
0.91
0.90
0.94
0. 89
0.64
0.61
0.84
0.77
0.65
0.86
0.82
0.73
0.88
, 1
2
3
6. 3
6.1
6.0
5.8
6. 0
6.3
4.0
3.3
2.7
4.9
4.5
4.1
5.3
5.0
4.8
1
2
3
co 4
6
3 6
0 7
8
9
10
10-Story Frame
1
2
3
4
* 6
CD
m 7
8
9
10
5-Story Frame
13
4
O 5
1
co 2
3
cu 4
5
e
00
3-Stor
,H
ffl
Table 2.2 Computed Damage R a t i o s f o r 3-, 5-, and 10-Story Frames
105
Damage R a t i o s
E l Centro EW
10-Story
Frame
5-Story
Frame
3-Story
Frame
T a f t S69E
Computed
S & S*
Computed
S & S*
Column 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
2.0
4.4
4.8
2.5
6.9
1.0
1.1
1.8
0.96
4.0
0.95
1.2
1.0
0.98
2.8
1.2
0.96
0.98
0. 85
1.7
0.98
1.1
0.90
0.88
0.97
0.95
0.98
0.95
0.90
0.90
0.58
0.80
0.70
0.80
0.90
0.80
0.80
0.85
0 . 80
0 . 80
Beam
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
6.5
7.6
8.3
8.1
8.6
9. 3
9.8
9.9
9.9
9.9
5.0
5.0
4.9
4.5
4 .1
4.2
4.1
3.9
3.6
3.4
5.5
5.5
5.0
4.9
4.8
4.6
4.8
3.8
3.0
2.2
Column 1
2
3
4
5
1.1
3.9
0.97
1.1
1.0
0.90
2.2
0.94
2.3
0.96
0.87
0.84
0.89
0.93
0.87
0.70
0 . 70
0.80
0.80
0. 90
Beam
1
2
3
4
5
5.4
7.1
7.1
6. 7
6.7
7.0
8.3
8.4
7.3
6.9
4.4
4.4
4.1
4.1
3.9
4.4
4.3
3.6
2.5
1.5
Column 1
2
3
0.95
0. 89
0.91
0.97
0.90
0.90
0.64
0.61
0.84
0.65
0.61
0.90
Beam
6. 3
6.1
6.0
6. 8
6. 3
6.0
4.0
3.3
2.7
4.5
3.7
3.0
1
2
3
6.9
7.2
7.5
7.8
7.5
8.8
9.6
9.9
9.8
10.0
* S h i b a t a and Sozen'
Table 2.3
Comparison of Damage R a t i o s f o r 3-, 5-, 10-Story

Frame's
106
N a t u r a l P e r i o d s f o r the F i r s t Modes i n sec
Initial
Elastic
Substitute
Structure
Nonlinear
Analysis
Average
Equal-Area
Stiffness
3-Story
Frame
0.50
0.85
0.65
0.72
5-Story
Frame
0. 85
1.58
1.20
1.29
10-Story
Frame
1.58
3.18
2 . 50
2.55
Table 2.4
Computed N a t u r a l P e r i o d s f o r 3-, 5-, and

Frames
No. of
Iterations
Mode 1
Mode 2
Mode 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1.0679
1.3701
1.7655
1.7810
1.7945
1.8004
1.8066
1.8076
1.8073
1.8069
1.8067
1.8060
1.8052
1.8046
1.8046
1.8041
1.8036
1.8035
1.8036
1.8036
0 . 3233
0. 3632
0.4484
0.4486
0.4513
0.4505
0.4496
0.4476
0.4455
0.4439
0.4431
0.4423
0.4414
0.4405
0.4397
0.4390
0.4386
0.4383
0.4381
0.4380
0.1804
0.1917
0.2231
0.2129
0.2074
0.2033
0 .2009
0.1990
0.1975
0.1964
0.1960
0.1956
0.1952
0.1948
0.1944
0.1940
0.1937
0.1936
0.1934
0.1933
1.8036
0.4377
0.1932
Subst.
( a )
10-Story
(a) N a t u r a l p e r i o d s computed i n the s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e

analysis
Table
3.1
N a t u r a l P e r i o d s f o r 2-Bay, 3-Story
Frame A
107
No. o f
Iterations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Subst.
( a )
Damage R a t i o s
Column 1
Column 2
Beam 1
Beam 2
1.000
1.205
1.079
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.155
1.848
1.964
2.030
1.986
1.881
1.749
1.621
1.508
1.409
1. 324
1.250
1.188
1.134
1.087
1.057
1.038
1.025
1. 017
1.011
2.853
6.084
6 . 382
6 . 281
6 .116
6.021
5.982
5.975
5.981
5.988
5.992
5.996
5.999
6 .002
6.004
6 .006
6.006
6.006
6.006
6.006
1. 344
2.538
3.281
4.119
4.758
5.195
5 . 453
5.612
5 .716
5. 785
5.827
5. 857
5.882
5.905
5.926
5.945
5.961
5.973
5.988
5.992
1.000
1.000
6.000
6 . 000
(a) Target damage r a t i o s i n the s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e
Table 3.2
Damage R a t i o s f o r 2-Bay, 3-Story
Frame A
analysis
108
_ _
NO.
J-
Of
Iterations
Mode 1
Mode 2
Mode 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
14
16
18
20
1.0674
1.2606
1.6682
1.6338
1.6371
1.6379
1.6382
1.6375
1.6366
1.6360
1.6350
1.6339
1.6331
1.6325
1.6320
0.3233
0.3694
0.4758
0.4609
0.4601
0.4605
0.4620
0.4636
0.4650
0.4663
0.4682
0.4692
0,4697
0 .4699
0.4700
0.1804
0 .2062
0.2666
0.2579
0.2568
0.2563
0.2560
0.2556
0.2552
0,2546
0.2534
0.2518
0.2503
0 .2489
0.2476
1.6307
0.4633
0.2 37 5
Subst.
( a )
(a) N a t u r a l p e r i o d s computed i n the s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e

analysis
Table 3.3
Frame B
Number o f I t e r a t i o n s
t =10"
Table 3.4
= i o "
i =10
0.0
1.0
29
18
158
81
200
124
Diff
11
77
76
-4
Number of I t e r a t i o n s - 2-Bay, 3-Story
Frame B
109
Damage R a t i o s
Member
_2
=10
=10
=10
A f t e r 100
Iterations
Exact
Col. 1
2
3
1.969
1.489
3. 476
1.998
2.002
2.017
2.001
2 .003
1.996
2.000
2.003
2.002
2.
2.
2.
Col. 4
5
6
l.ooo
1.000
1.496
1.000
1.000
1.036
1.000
1.000
1.005
1.000
1.000
1.013
1.
1.
1.
Col. 7
8
9
2.973
3.143
3.582
2.999
3.013
3.049
3.002
3.003
3.003
3.001
3.005
3.019
3.
3.
3.
Beam 1
2
3
6 . 016
6.160
4.675
5.993
6.000
5.956
5.995
5.999
5.991
5.995
5.999
5.981
6.
6.
6.
Beam 4
5
6
No. o f
Iterations
1.992
1.968
1.496
2.001
1.999
1.964
2 .002
2 .001
1.995
2 .001
2.000
1.987
2.
2.
2.
124
100
18
81
Table 3. 5
Damage R a t i o s f o r 2-Bay, 3-Story Frame B
Mode
1
2
Table 4.1
Initial
Elastic
0.50
0.13
Substitute
0.76
0.18
110
Displacements
Level
Centro
EW
1
2
2.8
5.3
Table 4.2
Centro
NS
2.6
5.1
Displacements
i n inches
Taft
S69E
Taft
N21E
Average
Subst.
1.3
2.7
1.9
3.6
2.1
4.2
1.8
3.8
f o r 2-Bay, 2-Story Frame
Mode
Initial
Elastic
1
2
3
Table 4.3
Substitute
0.94
0.30
0.14
1.22
0. 36
0.16
1
2
3
Table 4.4
1.04
Displacements
Level
Nonlinear
Average
Centro
EW
3.0
6.7
10 .6
Centro
NS
2.4
5.2
7.9
Displacements
i n inches
Taft
S69E
Taft
N21E
Average
Subst
1.8
3.8
6.2
1.6
3.0
5.2
2.2
4.7
7.5
2.2
5.0
8.0
f o r 3-Bay, 3-Story Frame
Ill
Initial
Elastic
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
1.08
0. 37
0.21
0.15
0 .10
0.077
Table 4.5
Nonlinear
Average
Substitute
1.85
0.84
0. 38
0.28
0.17
0 .13
1.65
N a t u r a l Periods f o r 1-Bay, 6-Story
Displacements
Level
Centro
EW
1
2
3
4
5
6
3.7
8.2
12.0
14.5
17.0
19. 3
Table 4.6
Centro
NS
Taft
S69E
0.74
1.7
3.0
4.5
6.5
8.4
1.4
3.3
4.8
6.7
9.4
11.6
Displacements
in
Frame
inches
Average
Taft
N21E
2.1
4.5
6.5
8.1
10.0
11.6
2.4
4.8
6. 1
6.6
6.9
7.2
f o r 1-Bay, 6-Story
Frame
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
Table 4.7
Initial
Elastic
1.07
0.34
0.19
0.12
0.090
0.075
Substitute
1.66
0.48
0.24
0.14
0 .096
0.076
Nonlinear
Average
1.25
Frame
Sub s t
0. 71
2.1
2.9
3. 3
6.8
8.6
112
Displacements i n inches
Level
Centro
EW
Centro
NS
1
2
3
4
5
6
1.3
3.5
5.9
7.9
9.2
9.8
1.1
2.9
4.5
5.5
6 .1
6.3
Table 4.8
Taft .
S69E
Taft
N21E
1.3
3.1
4.5
5.8
6.6
7.3
0.98
2.5
3.7
4.6
5.1
5.4
Average
Subst
1.2
3.0
4.7
6.0
6. 8
7.2
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
Table 5.1
Initial
Elastic
1.07
0.34
0.19
0.12
0.090
0 .075
Substitute
2.24
0.63
0.29
0 .16
0 .11
0.078
N a t u r a l P e r i o d s f o r 3-Bay, 6-Story Frame A Spectrum B
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
Table 5.2
Substitute
1.4
5.2
9.4
13. 3
16.8
19.7
Nonlinear
1.6
4.5
8.0
10.9
13.1
14.0
Displacements f o r 3-Bay, 6-Story Frame A Spectrum B
1.1
3.0
5.0
6. 7
7.9
8.8
113
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
Table 5.3
Initial
Elastic
0 . 86
0.27
0.15
0.099
0.073
0.060
Substitute
1.20
0 .34
0 .17
0 .11
0.076
0.061
N a t u r a l P e r i o d s f o r 3-Bay, 6-Story Frame B Spectrum B
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
Table 5.4
Substitute
1.1
3.3
5.5
7.4
8.7
9.4
Nonlinear
1.2
3.3
5.5
7.4
8.5
9.1
Displacements f o r 3-Bay, 6-Story Frame B Spectrum B
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
Table 5.5
Initial
Elastic
0.86
0.27
0.15
0.099
0.073
0.060
Substitute
"
1.20
0. 34
0 .17
0.11
0 .076
0.061
N a t u r a l P e r i o d s f o r 3-Bay, 6-Story Frame B - Spectrum

A
114
Displacements
Level
Centro
EW
Centro
NS
1
2
3
4
5
6
1. 3
3.4
5.4
6.9
7.7
8.0
1.1
2.8
4.3
5.4
6.0
6. 3
Table 5.6
Displacements
Spectrum A
i n inches
Taft
S69E
Taft
N21E
1.1
2.9
4.5
5.6
6.2
6.4
0.95
2.6
4.1
5.2
5.9
6.1
Average
1.1
2.9
4.6
5.8
6.4
6. 7
Subst
0.94
2.6
4.3
5.5
6.4
6.8
f o r 3-Bay, 6-Story Frame B -
Table 5.7
Mode
Initial
Elastic
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.86
0.27
0.15
0.099
0.073
0.060
Modified
Smooth
Spectrum
1.20
0.34
0.17
0.11
0.076
0 . 061
Subst. S t r . A n a l y s i s
Centro EW T a f t S69E
Spectrum
Spectrum
1.32
0 . 36
0.18
0.11
0.076
0.061
1.23
0.34
0.18
0.11
0.076
0.061
N a t u r a l P e r i o d s f o r 3-Bay, 6-Story Frame B E l Centro EW Spectrum and T a f t S69E Spectrum
115
Substitute Structure
Level
Smooth
Spectrum
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.94
2.6
4. 3
5.5
6.4
6. 8
Table 5.8
E l Centro EW
Spectrum
Nonlinear
E l Centro EW
1.1
3.2
5.4
7.2
8.4
9.0
1.3
3.4
5.4
6.9
7.7
8.0
Displacements f o r 3-Bay, 6-Story Frame B E l Centro EW Spectrum
Level
Smooth
Spectrum
T a f t S69E
Spectrum
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.94
2.6
4.3
5.5
6.4
6. 8
0.98
2.8
4.5
5.8
6.8
7.3
Table 5.9
Nonlinear
. T a f t S69E
1.1
2.8
4.3
5.4
6.0
6. 3
Displacements f o r 3-Bay, 6-Story Frame B T a f t S69E Spectrum
116
M o d i f i e d Subst. Str.. A n a l y s i s
Mode
Initial
Elastic
1
2
3
4
5
6
1.07
0. 34
0.19
0.12
0.090
0.075
Table 5.10
Smooth
Spectrum
Centro EW
Spectrum
T a f t S69E
Spectrum
2.04
0.58
0.28
0.16
0.11
0.082
1.82
0.52
0.25
0.15
0.098
0.076
1.66
0.48
0.24
0.14
0.096
0.076
N a t u r a l P e r i o d s f o r 3-Bay, 6-Story Frame A E l Centro EW Spectrum and T a f t S69E Spectrum
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
Table 5.11
Smooth
. i E l Centro EW
Spectrum
Spectrum
1.1
3.0
5.0
6.7
7.9
8.8
1.5
4.8
8.4
11.6
14.3
16 .4
Nonlinear
E l Centro EW
1.3
3.5
5.9
7.9
9.2
9.8
Displacements f o r 3-Bay, 6-Story Frame A E l Centro EW Spectrum
117
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
Table 5.12
Smooth
Spectrum
1.1
3.0
5.0
6.7
7.9
8.8
T a f t S69E
Spectrum
1.3
3.9
6.7
9.2
11.2
12.4
Nonlinear
T a f t S69E
1.3
3.1
4.5
5.8
6.6
7.3
Displacements f o r 3-Bay, 6-Story Frame A T a f t S69E Spectrum
118
Max. l o a d - d e f l e c t i o n
relationship for
hypothetical structure
which remains e l a s t i c
Max. l o a d - d e f l e c t i o n
relationship for
actual structure
which y i e l d s
Deflection
F i g . 2.1
I d e a l i z e d H y s t e r e s i s Loop f o r R e i n f o r c e d
Concrete System
119
120
Start
Read:
1. s t r u c t u r a l
information
2. j o i n t i n f o r m a t i o n
3. member i n f o r m a t i o n
target
including
damage r a t i o s
Compute: 1. number o f unknowns

2. h a l f bandwidth
3. member s u b s t i t u t e
damping
ratios
Assemble the mass m a t r i x
1. Compute member s t i f f n e s s m a t r i c e s .
Modify the f l e x u r a l p a r t o f s t i f f n e s s e s
a c c o r d i n g to the t a r g e t
2. Assemble the s t r u c t u r a l s t i f f n e s s m a t r i x .
i == 1
n == 0
g. 2.3
Flow Diagram f o r S u b s t i t u t e S t r u c t u r e
Method
121
No
Yes
Set (3 = 0 f o r a l l the modes
R e c a l l the smeared
damping
ratios
Compute the response

acceleration for n th
mode
Set up the load
vector
Compute the f l e x u r a l
strain
energy s t o r e d i n each member
N = number o f modes
Yfes
energy
strain
s t o r e d i n each member
g. 2 . 3
Flow Diagram
f o r S u b s t i t u t e S t r u c t u r e Method
122
Compute the smeared
damping
r a t i o f o r n t h mode
n = n + 1
N= Number o f modes
Yes
i
= 2
Compute RSS displacements '

and
RSS f o r c e s
Compute the design

jp
_
design
forces
liabs ^rss
rss
V
+
Increase the column

moments by 2 0%
Stop
Fig.
2.3
Flow Diagram f o r S u b s t i t u t e S t r u c t u r e
Method
123
M =173 k - f t
J
216
Beams
216
186
366
366
19 5
404
404
Size
3-Story Frame
18"x 30"
13,500 i n
5-Story Frame
18"x 30"
10-Story Frame
18"x 30"
13,500 i n ^
4
13,500 i n
3-Story Frame
24"x 24"
13,824 i n '
5-Story Frame
24"x 24"
13,824 i n '
10-Story Frame
30"x 30"
33,750 in
Columns
206
448
448
E = 3,600 k s i
219
F l o o r weight i s 72 k i p s a t a l l l e v e l s
428
428
M =199 k - f t
228
401
401
239
228
446
226
446
313
217
496
328
19 7
328
254
407
183
1165
831
24 '
Member P r o p e r t i e s
407
189
831
24 '
254
231
417
417
128
F i g . 2.4
M =212 k - f t
_,y_
233
695
1165
313
237
496
695
239
850
850
24 '
and Design Moments f o r
3-, 5-, 10-Story Frames
124
0.0
0.5
12
10
1.0
1.5
2.0
Period
2.5
3.0
i n sec.
Frequency i n h e r t z
Response A c c e l e r a t i o n f o r
Response A c c e l e r a t i o n f o r (i=0.02
F i g . 2.5
8
6 + 100p
Smoothed Response Spectrum - Design Spectrum A
125
/* = 1
W = 72 k i p s
/A = 1
1
/A -1
W = 72 k i p s
1
yU = 1
/A = 6
/*-
W = 72 k i p s
fA = 2
yU = Target damage
24
E = 3600 k s i
M =325 k - f t
y
390
390
669
736
736
Yield
239
728
Moments
728
Size
1st StoryColumns
2nd
Story
3rd Story
Beams
F i g . 2.6
24"
x 24"
10,368
24" x 24"
13,824
24"
x 24"
13,824
18"
x 30"
13,500
S o f t Story Frame A - Member P r o p e r t i e s and

Yield
Moments
ratio
126
0.84
1.2
1.5
3.1
0.79
0.79
1.9
0.93
1.1
0.70
0.80
0.88
3.7
4.4
6.1
1.2
1.8
2.8
E l Centro EW
T a f t S69E
E l Centro NS
1.8
1.3
0.81
0.79
1.2
0.96
0.77
0.72
4.5
3.9
1.3
Average
T a f t N21E
F i g . 2.7
S o f t Story Frame A - Damage R a t i o s f o r

Individual
Earthquakes
127
/*=
W = 72 k i p s
yu= 1
= 1
/U = 6
W = 72 k i p s
/U = 2
>U = 1
W = 72 k i p s
= 1
= 1
yU = Target Damage R a t i o
24
M =583 k - f t
y
699
Size
Columns
699
238
610
610
24"x24"
13,824 i n
24"x24"
10,368
24"x24"
13,824 i n ^
18"x30"
13,500 i n
Beams
707
902
902
Design Moments
F i g . 2.8
S o f t Story Frame B - Member P r o p e r t i e s and

Y i e l d Moments
in
128
0.96
0.82
0 .78
0 .78
4.4
4.1
4.2
0.79
0 .84
0.82
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.1
0.96
1.2
E l Centro EW
T a f t S69E
E l Centro NS
0 .89
0.60
0 .71
0.48
3.8
2.6
0 .74
0.53
1.0
0.70
0.97
0.66
Average
T a f t N21E
F i g . 2.9
1.0
0.96
S o f t Story Frame B - Damage R a t i o s f o r

Individual
Earthquakes
129
/i=
}K=
W = 600 k i p s
y(A= 2
fK=
//= 2
fk= 3
yU= 2
W = 600 k i p s
yU =
yU = 4
yU = 6
JJi= 3
yU = 2
W = 600 k i p s
/A- 3
CM
E = 3,600 k s i
50
50
M =339 k - f t
y
478
745
614
1061
962
1069
524
1323
2513
1127
Y i e l d Moments
823
1288
610
938
Size
F i g . 2.10
Columns
21" x 21'
16,000 i n
Beams
20"
40,000 i n
x 36'
2-Bay, 3-Story Frame - Member

and
Y i e l d Moments
Properties
130
4.2
0.92
0.70
3.2
1.6
2.8
1.8
2.2
5.0
2.7
5.6
1.7
0.87
4.2
4.7
1.9
1.1
1.6
3.2
7.2
4.4
0.70
2.8
2.0
2.0
6.7
3.3
1.5
3.6
1.0
E l Ce rttro EW
E l Centro NS
4.4
3.1
1.6
0 .90
1.7
1.8
4.2
0 .90
1.8
3.8
0.89
F i g . 2.11
0.76
2.6
2.2
1.8
2.5
1.7
Average
2.1
5.1
2.6
1.6
1.3
1.7
3.7
1.3
T a f t N21E
T a f t S69E
0 .69
1.5
4.0
2.6
1.2
0.95
2.3
1.6
0.77
1.8
1.3
1.9
0.90
1.7
0.85
0.67
3.0
0.96
1.1
3.6

131
F i g . 2.12
Force-Displacement Curve - D e f i n i t i o n
of Equal-Area
Stiffness
132
ig.
3.1
Moment-Rotation Curve - M o d i f i c a t i o n of
Damage Ratio
133
Start
Read:
1. s t r u c t u r a l
information
2. j o i n t i n f o r m a t i o n
3. member i n f o r m a t i o n .
Compute:
1. number of unknowns
2. h a l f bandwidth.
"
Set the damage r a t i o s a t one
V
Assemble the mass matrix

f
k = 1
Compute member s t i f f n e s s m a t r i c e s .
Modify the f l e x u r a l
stiffnesses
a c c o r d i n g to the damage r a t i o s .
Assemble the s t r u c t u r a l
stiffness
matrix.
Yes
=
1 ^ >
No
Compute member s u b s t i t u t e damping
ratios.
}
Compute:
1. n a t u r a l p e r i o d s
2. mode shapes
3. modal p a r t i c i p a t i o n
F i g . 3.2
factors.
Flow Diagram f o r M o d i f i e d S u b s t i t u t e S t r u c t u r e Method
134
1
i
= 1 and n = 0
Yes
Set (b a t
appropriate
s
Set
(3=0 f o r
values
R e c a l l smeared
damping
a l l modes
ratios
Compute the response a c c e l e r a t i o n

f o r n t h mode
Set up the l o a d
vector
Compute modal displacements

and modal
forces
No
s t r a i n energy
s t o r e d i n each member.
Compute the smeared damping
ratio
f o r n t h mode
g. 3.2
Flow Diagram f o r M o d i f i e d
= 2
Compute RSS
and RSS
Write:
displacements
forces
1. RSS
displacements
2. RSS
forces
3. damage r a t i o s
Y
Stop
Flow Diagram f o r M o d i f i e d
Method
136
/A = 6
/A = 1
yU=
A=
CN
/A =
M=
yU= 1
6
yU = 1
yU = 1
/U= 6
W = 600 k i p s
W = 600 k i p s
Damage
Ratio
/A= 6
/A:
/U = Target
yU= 1
W = 600 k i p s
JU=
E = 3,600 k s i
Columns
50
50
M =461 k - f t
Y
722
501
722
501
921
443
1612
461
917
746
Size
21" x 21" 20" x 36"

16,000 i n
Natural
3.3
0.4 38 s e c .
Mode 3
0.19 3 s e c .
443
Y i e l d Moments
Periods
Mode 2
1612
2-Bay, 3-Story Frame A - Member P r o p e r t i e s

and
40,000 i n
1.804 s e c .
Y i e l d Moments
Fig.
Mode 1
746
1701
Beams
Number
F i g . 3.4
of
Iterations
2-Bay, 3-Story Frame A - P l o t of Periods v s . Number of I t e r a t i o n s
F i g . 3.5
2-Bay, 3-Story Frame - P l o t of Damage Ratios v s . Number o f I t e r a t i o n s
139
/A. =
CN
rH
/U = 2
yU =
/A =
jX =
/A=
JU. =
W = 600 k i p s
3
W = 600 k i p s
CN
rH
/A=
CN
rH
jU =
JU=
}k =
/A=
Target Damage
Ratio
/A=
/A=
W = 600 k i p s
yU=
3
E = 3,600 k s i
1r
Size
50
50 '
M =365 k - f t
y
1212
368
Columns
21"x21"
16,000 i n
Beams
20"x36"
40,000 i n '
751
1299
487
Natural
761
1389
517
1349
525
1171
2513
Mode 1
1.6307 s e c .
Mode 2
0.4633 s e c .
Mode 3
0.2375 s e c .
967
Y i e l d Moments
Fig.
3.6
2-Bay, 3-Story Frame B - Member P r o p e r t i e s

and Y i e l d Moments
Periods
Period 3
Period 2
-Period 2
iod I
_1
10
15
'
20
Number of Iterations
2-Bay, 3-Story Frame B - P l o t o f Periods v s . Number of I t e r a t i o n s
141
3.48
1.41
1.34
3.35
5.47
2.50
2.13
2.17
1.76
1.45
6.17
3.48
3.63
1.34
5. 47
3.45
2.03
1.09
1.41
1. 76
2.11
1.45
6 .]7
3.20
2.17
3.45
2. 03
1.94
1.09
3.20
<
After 4 iterations
4.28
3.63
1.42
1.47
6.07
1.84
1.95
5.98
3.49
1.92
1.15
6.01
A f t e r 12 i t e r a t i o n s
6.00
3.43
1.98
1.00
3.8
2.00
6.00
2.97
Fig.
2.00
2.00
1.99
1.01
2.00
1.00 .
3.01
2.00
1.00

Computed a t the End o f 4, 12, 20, and
200 I t e r a t i o n s
3.02
3.00
143
M =115 k - f t
Y
60
W = 100 k i p s
200
140
110
210
90
W = 120 k i p s
200
19 5
600
E = 4,320 k s i
30 '
30 '
Size
E x t e r i o r Columns
21" x 21"
8,100 i n
I n t e r i o r Columns
18" x 18"
4,375 i n '
Beams 1st Story
18"
x 21"
4,630 i n '
15" x 18"
2,430 i n '
2nd
Fig.
4.1
Story

Y i e l d Moments
2.3
4.2
0.61
2.3
Modified
Substitute
Structure Analysis
F i g . 4.2
Average of 4 N o n l i n e a r
Dynamic A n a l y s i s
144
0 .74
0 . 59
3.3
0.94
0.82
4.4
-to
2.5
^sv
T a f t S69E
Fig.
4.3
0.94
0.78
0.56
6.5
1.1
**
3.7
T a f t N21E

0 .56
2.1
4.6
1.7
3.6
3.7
2.0
3.0
1.6
2.0
*^
145
M =60 k - f t
2
90
250
205
225
110
385
240
410
430
240
170
30
325
600
20
895
Size
I n t e r i o r Columns
Beams
W = 240 k i p s
E = 3,600 k s i
30
E x t e r i o r Columns
W = 200 k i p s
480
530
780
355
125
305
W = 180 k i p s
24"
24"
24"
24"
21"
21"
21"
21"
21"
21"
18"
18"
18"
24"
18"
21"
18"
18"
. 4
13,800 i n
. 4
13,800 i n
. 4
8,100 i n
. 4
8,100 i n
. 4
8,100 i n
. 4
4,375 i n
. 4
6,910 i n
. 4
4,630 i n
. 4
2,920 i n
(a) I f o r the r ght-hand-side

i
column
i s 4,375 i n
4
F i g . 4.4
3-Bay, 3-Story Frame - Member P r o p e r t i e s

and Y i e l d Moments
146
5.2
1.0
4.5
1.1
1.0
4.9
0.70
1.1
2.1
2.0
0 . 86
3.6
1.1
1.5
3.3
1.0
1.1
Modified
1.1
Substitute
Structure
Analysis
0.62
0.94
4. 3
0.80
2.4
1.6
3.7
1.2
Average of 4 Nonlinear
0.68
1.2
1.3
1.2
F i g . 4.5
0.64
2.1
0.91
3.8
1.3
1.2
<
3-Bay, 3-Story Frame - Damage Ratios
147
6.4
0.54
5.7
0.81
5.0
1.9
6.2
0.86
1.5
1.8
3.3
0.95
0.68
2.8
2.1
5.2
1.7
5.5
4.5
0.80
0.99
1.9
1.4
E l Centro EW
4.6
0 . 79
3.7
0.73
3.1
1.0
0.98
0.94
2.0
0.84
0.64
1.2
0.61
0.97
0.95
4.6
0.60
3.2
0.66
2.4
0.99
T a f t S69E
Fig.
0.67
2.2
2.5
1.8
0.78
1.3
4.2
1.3
4.0
1.8
3.1
0.97
1.2
1.4
1.4
E l Centro NS
4.4
1.0
0.94
1.0
4.1
1.6
1.8
0 .56
1.3
5.3
0.91
3.7
0.93
0.84
0 .84
1.7
0.84
1.5
1.0
2.4
0.89
0.85
T a f t N21E
Earthquakes
0.53
0.78

Individual
0.55
0.84
148
M - 110 k - f t
V
130
Size
(in)
(in )
21x30
24 ,000
21x30
24,000
21x27
19,200
21x27
19,200
21x21
9 ,400
21x21
9 ,400
15x36
33,700
15x36
33,700
15x36
33,700
15x36
33,700
15x36
33,700
15x31
11,600
130
235
180
180
363
235
235
458
262
262
518
296
296
487
E = 3,600 k s i
422
422
35

Y i e l d Moments
149
5.7
6.8
0.85
1.1
7.5
9.5
16 .6
3.7
5.0
1.0
5.5
0.97
0.94
3.8
7.2
2.9
3.9
1.0
6.2
6.6
4.7
1.5
6.9
2.5
Modified
Substitute
Structure Analysis
F i g . 4.8
Average of 4 N o n l i n e a r
150
8.4
6.1
0.96
1.3
10.8
8.1
6.3
4.3
7.1
8.1
4.7
5.2
6.3
10.4
5.2
7.4
2.2
.5
3.3
8.2
1.7
14.4
3.7
E l Centro EW
E l Centro NS
7.2
1.1
1.1
0.84
1.7
9.5
3.1
1.1
6.8
7.0
6.5
1.3
1.7
3.8
6.6
3.0
5.1
1.3
3.2
7.9
3.4
5.5
6.7
2.8
T a f t S69E
F i g . 4.9
3.7
T a f t N21E

Individual
Earthquakes
151
M =153 k - f t
228
183
447
19 8
309
447
317
471
330
471
550
267
438
661
228
276
Columns
24" x 24"
Beams
18" x 30"
416
228
356
1020
24
Size
330
661
1020
24
330
550
276
1020
237
423
550
416
309
550
267
330
183
198
376
237
rH
rH
153
1020
24
I
13,824 i n '
4
13,500 i n
E = 3,600 k s i
F l o o r weight i s
200 k i p s a t a l l l e v e l s
F i g . 4.10
3-Bay, 6-Story frame - Member P r o p e r t i e s and

Yield
Moments
152
3.5
0.84
2.0
0.83
3.9
2.3
4.2
0.83
2.5
0.81
0 . 78
0 .80
4.3
0 .80
2.6
Modified
Substitute
Structure Analysis
1
0.83
4.5
2.7
4.5
0.79
2.7
0.77
0.72
0 . 78
1.7
0.86
0.95
2.7
0.70
1.6
3.6 .
0.91
2.2
4.3
0.88
2.4
1.1
1.0
Average o f 4 N o n l i n e a r
s
1.1
4.7
0.70
F i g . 4.11
0.75
5.2
0.81
0.93
3.0
Dynamic Analyses
3.3
0.88
153
2.0
1.0
3.2
2.0
0.99
1.5
4.7
3.0
5.7
2.0
0.58
2.6
1.1
0.76
1.5
0.70
,
s
0.99
1.4
0.59 .
)
0.82
0.81
0 .89
1.0
>
0 . 86
3.5
3.7
0.83
2.2
5
0.96
1.0
1.5
6.0
3.8
4.5
0.91
2.8
,
>
0.59
0.85
0.86
5.9
5.0
3.8
0 .69
3.2
Jf
E l Cenlbro
E l Cen t r o NS
EW
2.8
1.6
3.6
1.0
,
0.82
0.81
0.90
0.82
0.76
0.93
0.86
1.9
2.3
0.61 .
0.58
1.1
)
1.1
1.5
4.6
4.8
1.5
3.1
0.79
1.9
3.7
0 .89
2.3
4.4
0.68
2.8
3.0
5.5
0.63
3.5
Taft
N21E

Individual
Earthquakes
it
l
0.78
0 .71
0.98
T a f t S69E
F i g . 4.12
2.5
0.88
0.76
0.91
0 .77
0.77
0.89
0.71
0.69
3.1
4.9
0.94
2.9
0.91
1.0
<
154
2.5 -
Frequency i n Hertz
Response A c c e l e r a t i o n
Response A c c e l e r a t i o n
F i g . 5.1
for
ft
f o r p=0.02
8
6 + 100p>
Smoothed Response Spectrum - Design Spectrum B
155
12.4
0.97
8.0
0.84
11.0
6.7
,
>
0.96
0.91
10.3
1.0
6.4
0.90
9.9
0.92
Modified
6.1
Structure
3.1
5.8
>
2.3
6.3
3.9
0.90
W = 200 k i p s / f l o o r
0.96
4.2
0.94
4.6
5.6
s
0.85
3.7
7.5
1.9
1.3
Nonlinear
5.1
Jf
3.6
2.4
8.0
2.7
Dynamic
Analysis
( 8244 Orion
5.2
1.9
7.1
F i g . 5.2
3.0
2.5
5.0
7.8
1.1
Analysis
( Spectrum B )
0.91
9.5
Substitute
4.6
if
1.2
3-Bay, 6-Story Frame A - Damage Ratios
1971 )
F i g . 5.3
3-Bay, 6-Story Frame A - P l o t of Damage R a t i o s f o r

Beams i n the E x t e r i o r Bay
157
2.1
1.1
0.82
0.85
3.1
0.91
1.9
0.91
4.1
0.87
2.4
0 .88
4.6
0.82
2.8
0.87
4.8
0.84
Modified
Structure
Substitute
Analysis
( Spectrum B )
2.9
0.85
4.7
0.75
2.9
0 .82
W = 130 k i p s / f l o o r
1.7
0.90
0.84
0.73
2.9
1.5
1.1
4.6
1.2
0.92
3.4
0 .89
5.6
0.78
Nonlinear
Dynamic
Analysis
( 8244 Orion
3.5
0.80
5.6
F i g . 5.4
2.9
0.95
5.4
0.80
1,
3.6
0.81
1971 )
158
*
Modified
Subst.
Str. M e t h o d
( Spectrum
B)
Nonlinear A n a l y s i s 18244 Orion)
\\
\\
\\
\\
\
\
i
\
3
1
i
i
i
i
(i
O.O
2.0
4.0
e
1
1
1
I
6.0
Ratios
3-Bay, 6-Story Frame B - P l o t of Damage R a t i o s

f o r Beams i n the E x t e r i o r Bay
159
0.71
1.3
0.84
0.67
2.1
1.2
J
i
0.75
0.83
2.8
1.7
0 .75
0.79
3.2
Modified
Substitute
Structure
0.76
0.83
3.6
( Spectrum
Analysis
A )
2.1
l
0.67
0.74
3.8
2.3
0.71
0 .64
W =
130
kips/floor
0 .52
0.87
0.73
0.51
1.8
1.0
0.78
0.83
3.0
1.8
0 .94
0.83
3.9
Average
of 4
Dynamic
Analyses
0.87
4.6
2.9
0.63
0 .70
5.0
3-2
TO
3-Bay,
0.82
0.75
5.6
2.4
0.90
Fig.
\
{
'
6-Story
Frame B
- Damage
Ratios
Nonlinear
160
0.85
0.52
0.72
0.50
1.8
0.94
0.56
0 .79
1.0
0.55
2.0
1.1
>
0.84
0.77
0.87
3.3
2.0
1.2
4.7
2.9
0.95
3.5
,
)
0 .86
3.7
2.3
0.91
0.91
5.4
1.8
0.87
0.93
0 .83
3.0
>
0.87
4.3
2.7
>
0.72
0.77
5.8
0.60
3.7
4.9
0.83
0.90
*>
0.67
s
0.74
0.81
v*
E l Centro EW
E l Cen t r o NS
0.85
<,
0.69
1.7
0.49
0.97
0 . 70
2.8
0.85
1.7
3.6
0 .89
2.2
2.8
0.78
2.7
0.89
1.6
0.87
3.6
2.2
1
(
0 .84
0.87
4.5
0.96
t
{
0.83
0 .49
0.74
0.82
0.51
1.7
\t
0.77
3.1
>
0.83
4.2
2.6
0 .59
0.60
0.68
5.0
0.75
4.4
3.2
2.8
>
0.82
0.68
T a f t S69E
F i g . 5.7
0.69
0 .74
T a f t N21E
3-Bay, 6-Story Frame B - Damage R a t i o s f o r

Individual
Earthquakes
Fig.
O.O
0.5
1.0
Period i n
E l Centro EW Spectrum and

Design Spectrum A
5.8
1.5
Sec
2.0
Response Acceleration
o
in
in CJ
to
o
o
- o
n>
s
H-
vQ
-3
fD Cu
cn hh
H- r t
c n
c n
c n
T j
vo
M
(D
o
c n
rj fD
C O
3 rt
> S
Z9T
16 3
0.85
a r - ^ u .
0.85
0 .72
0.76
2.7
0.89
1.6
0.88
1.0 ,
>
0.84
'
0.87
3.3
ti
0.89
4.3
0.50
1.8
0.91
3.7
0.52 ,
2.0
1.2
2 7
0.93
4.7
2.9
Ji
0.82
0.88
4.5
0.95
2.8
5.4
0.81
4.5
0.74
0.85
0.64
5.8
3.7
}{
MSSA^ ) ( E l Centro EW Spectrum)

1
1.3
3.5
0.72
2.8
0.81
0.91
0.83
0.90
(2)
NDA^
J
( E l Centro EW Motion)
0.71
>
0.84
0.67
2.1
1.2
S
0.75
2.8
0.75
0.83
1.7
0.75
3.2
0.76
(1) M o d i f i e d
Structure
1.9
(2) Nonlinear
0.83
3.6
W = 130 k i p s / f l o o r
Substitute
Analysis
Dynamic
Analysis
2.1
i
0.67
3.8
0.64
MSSA >
(1
F i g . 5.10
0.74
2.3
0.71
(Smooth Spectrum)
3-Bay, 6-Story Frame B - Damage Ratios
16 4
1.5
0.79
0.71
0.85
2.3
0.85
,
0.70
1.7
1.4
(
)
0.78
3.0
0.77
1.8
3.4
0.78
2.1
0.70
2.3
3.6
0.87
2.2
0.83
0 .84
4.2
2.6
>
0.69
0 .60
0 .76
3.8
1.6
0 .89
0.84
3.7
2.7
s
i
0.81
0 .49
0.96
0.78
0 .74
0.85
0.51
2.8
4.4
2.4
\
f
0.74
0.67
MSSA
(Taft S69E Spectrum)
(1)
1.3
0.84
2.1
0.75
2.8
0.75
3.2
0.76
3.6
0.67
3.8
0.64
0 .74
0.68
NDA
(2)
' ( T a f t S69E Motion)
0.71
0.67
1.2
W = 130 k i p s / f l o o r
0.83
1.7
0.83
1.9
(1) M o d i f i e d
Substitute
Structure Analysis
(2) Nonlinear
Dynamic Analy
0.83
2.1
0.74
2.3
0.71
MSSA (1) (Smooth Spectrum)

V
F i g . 5.11
165
7.7
0.97
5.1
0.94
7.4
1.0
2.0
0.89
4.8
0.81
3.2
2.0
{I
1.0
0.97
7.3
1.5
4.7
0.99
4.7
3.0
<
1.0
0.93
7.1
1.0
1.4
4.6
2.2
1.5
-
1.0
6.0
1.75.8
3.7
5.7
0.97
7.1
0.99
0.86
3.8
3.8
0.85
5.9
3.8
>
0.94
1.0
0.86
M S S A ^ ( E l Centro EW Spectrum)
3.5
0.84
2.0
NDA
0.93
(2)
' ( E l Centro EW Motion)
-5
0.83
3.9
0.81
2.3
W = 200 k i p s / f l o o r
0.83
4.2
0.78
2.5
0.80
4.3
0.80
2.6
0.83
4.5
0.77
(1) M o d i f i e d
Structure
(2) Nonlinear
Substitute
Analysis
Dynamic
Analysis
2.7
0.79
4.5
0.72
2.7
0.78
(1)
MSSA' (Smooth Spectrum)
F i g . 5.12
166
4.7
2.9
2.8
1.6
>
0.90
0 .88
5.0
0.97
0.81
3.1
0.95
5.4
0.90
3.6
2.3
i
1.5
1.1
3.4
4.6
2.9
l
0.95
0.92
5.6
0.87
1.0
0.86
MSSA
4.9
0.94
3.6
0.96
5.3
0.91
3.6
0.89
5.6
1.0
>
0 .89
4.8
3.0
,
i
0.71
3.4
0.93
3.1
0.76
5.5
0.91
3.5
0.98
(1)
( T a f t S69E Spectrum)
3.5
0.84
0.83
3.9
0.81
2.3
0.83
4.2
0.78
W = 200 k i p s / f l o o r
2.5
0.80
4.3
0.80
2.6
0.83
4.5
0.77
2.7
(1) M o d i f i e d
Substitute
Structure
(2) Nonlinear
Analysis
0.79
4.5
0.72
MSSA
2.0
(1)
F i g 5.13
2.7
0.78
(Smooth Spectrum)
Analysis
Dynamic
167
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.
A s s o c i a t e Committee on the N a t i o n a l B u i l d i n g Code 19 75,

Supplement No.
4 to the N a t i o n a l B u i l d i n g Code of Canada,
N a t i o n a l Research C o u n c i l of Canada, Ottawa,
Ontario,
1975.
2.
A p p l i e d Technology C o u n c i l , " T e n t a t i v e P r o v i s i o n s f o r
the Development of Seismic
ATC
3-06
NSF
78-8,
C a l i f o r n i a , June,
3.
Regulations
for Buildings",
A p p l i e d Technology C o u n c i l , Palo A l t o ,
1978.
Okada, T. and B r e s l e r , B.,
"Strength
and
Ductility
E v a l u a t i o n of E x i s t i n g Low-Rise R e i n f o r c e d
B u i l d i n g s - Screening
Engineering
Berkeley,
4.
Method", EERC 76-1,
Concrete
Earthquake
Research Center, U n i v e r s i t y of
C a l i f o r n i a , February,
Freeman, S. A.,
California,
1976.
N i c o l e t t i , J . P.,
and
Tyrrell, J.
" E v a l u a t i o n of E x i s t i n g B u i l d i n g s f o r Seismic
A Case Study of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard,
Risk
V.,
Bremerton,
Washington", Proceedings of the U. S. N a t i o n a l Conference

on Earthquake E n g i n e e r i n g ,
1975,
5.
pp.
Ann
Shibata, A. and
Sozen, M. A.,
Design i n R/C",
Clough, R. W.
and
McGraw-Hill, New
Hudson, D. E.,
" S u b s t i t u t e - S t r u c t u r e Method
J o u r n a l of the S t r u c t u r a l
D i v i s i o n , ASCE, V o l . 10 2, No.
7.
June,
113-122.
f o r Seismic
6.
Arbor, I l l i n o i s ,
S T l , January, 19 76,
Penzien, J . , Dynamics of
York, 1975,
pp.
pp.1-18.
Structures,
545-610.
"Some Problems i n the A p p l i c a t i o n of Spectrum
Technique to Strong-Motion Earthquake A n a l y s i s " , B u l l e t i n
16 8
of
the S e i s m o l o g i c a l S o c i e t y o f America, V o l . 52, No. 2,
April,
8.
1962, pp. 417-430.
Gulkan, P. and Sozen, M. A., " I n e l a s t i c Response o f

R e i n f o r c e d Concrete S t r u c t u r e s t o Earthquake Motions",
J o u r n a l o f the American Concrete I n s t i t u t e , V o l . 71, No.
12, December, 1974, pp. 604-610.
9.
Takeda,
T., Sozen, M. A., and N i e l s e n , N. N.,
"Reinforced
Concrete Response t o Simulated Earthquakes", J o u r n a l of

S t r u c t u r a l D i v i s i o n , ASCE, V o l . 96, No. ST12, December,
1970, pp. 2557-2573.
10.
Jenning, P. C ,
" E q u i v a l e n t V i s c o u s Damping f o r Y i e l d i n g
S t r u c t u r e s " , J o u r n a l of the E n g i n e e r i n g Mechanics
Division,
ASCE, V o l . 94, No. EMl, February, 1968, pp. 103-116.

11.
Blume, J . A., Newmark, N. M., and Corning, L. H.,

Design of M u l t i s t o r y R e i n f o r c e d Concrete B u i l d i n g s f o r
Earthquake Motions, P o r t l a n d Cement A s s o c i a t i o n , Chicago,
1961, pp. 73-86.
12.
Otani, S., "SAKE.
A Computer Program f o r I n e l a s t i c
Response o f R/C Frames t o Earthquakes", S t r u c t u r a l Research

S e r i e s No. 413, C i v i l E n g i n e e r i n g S t u d i e s , U n i v e r s i t y o f
Illinois,
13.
Urbana,
Illinois,
November,
1974.
O t a n i , S. and Sozen, M. A., "Behaviour of M u l t i s t o r y

R e i n f o r c e d Concrete Frames d u r i n g Earthquakes", S t r u c t u r a l
Research S e r i e s No. 39 2,
U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s ,
14.
C i v i l Engineering Studies,
Urbana,
Illinois,
Nigam, N. C. and Jennings, P. C ,
November,
1972.
" D i g i t a l Calculation of
Response Spectra from Strong Motion Earthquake
Records",
Earthquake E n g i n e e r i n g Research L a b o r a t o r y , C a l i f o r n i a
I n s t i t u t e of Technology, Pasadena,
C a l i f o r n i a , June, 1968.
169
Appendix A
M o d i f i c a t i o n o f Damage R a t i o - S t r a i n Hardening Case
Consider the b i l i n e a r moment-rotation curve shown i n

Fig. A . l .
Let
= initial
stiffness,
= r a t i o of s t i f f n e s s a f t e r y i e l d to i n i t i a l
stiffness,
= damage r a t i o used i n n t h i t e r a t i o n ,
j^ -^
n+
= damage r a t i o t o be used i n n+1 t h i t e r a t i o n ,
M
y
= y i e l d moment,
= computed moment i n n t h i t e r a t i o n ,
<p
- yield
rotation,
and
c
= r o t a t i o n corresponding t o M on l i n e OC.
M' and 6 ' a r e the moment and r o t a t i o n a t B, which i s an i n t e r n
n
n
s e c t i o n of l i n e s OC and AC'.
Assume t h a t the damage r a t i o , j x ^ ,
used i n the n t h i t e r a t i o n
was too s m a l l ; p o i n t C i s o f f the b i l i n e a r curve.

the
damage r a t i o must be i n c r e a s e d i n the next i t e r a t i o n .

0 ,
i s assumed t h a t the r o t a t i o n ,
of l i n e O C
JJ[ -^r
n+
Therefore,
It
i s c o r r e c t and t h a t the s l o p e
i s used as the new s t i f f n e s s .
The new damage r a t i o ,
i s d e r i v e d i n a f o l l o w i n g manner.
k
Slope o f l i n e OC*:
Slope o f l i n e OC:
From (A.2),
M
_
<p = yW
n
n+1
(A.l)
/M
. I n_
(A.2)
{ A
n
'
3 )
170
Substitute
equation
(A.3)
into
(A.l).
n+l
' n+1
A n+l
1
V k
M
Z^n+l
/*n
\
Slove
for M
, , i n terms
n+l
,
n+l
= M
rn
s k ( d>
'n
s-k
= M'
n
Now
solve
. , = M'
n+l
n
for
S M
M'
n
( 1 -
) + M
Pn
k//A
U
n /n
l
- d> )
"n
k/yW
(A.4)
n+1
and U
of M
y
M
= M
M'
n/^n
U
f*n
M,
n
1
= M
s- k ( <>
n
s k
- -i
"y
M'
n
k//X
M
n
( l - S ) + M ' - S y W
n
/ n
(A. 5)
171
1 - s
1
S u b s t i t u t e equation
(A.6)
= M
"
(A.6)
= M
S u b s t i t u t e equation
into
( 1
1 - s
" /*n
s
( 1 - s ) + s.^ -M
n
(A.7)
into
/ n
n+l
(A.5)
1 - s
, , = M
n+l
y
n+1
'/V n
M
(A.7)
(A.4).
( 1 - s ) + s.^
(3.4)
n
172
Fig. A . l
Moment-Rotation Curve
173
Appendix B
Computer Program
The FORTRAN IV program f o r the m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e

s t r u c t u r e method i s l i s t e d i n the f o l l o w i n g i n t h i s appendix.
The subroutine, MOD3, i s w r i t t e n f o r an e l a s t o - p l a s t i c
Important v a r i a b l e s are e x p l a i n e d i n each s u b r o u t i n e .
case.
174
DIMENSION KL (50) , KG (50) , ABEA (50) ,CBMOM (50) ,BMCAP(100) ,
1 DA L I B AT (50) ,ND(3,50) , HP (6,50) ,XM (50) ,M (50) ,DM (50) ,S (500)
C
C
C
2F(100) ,TITLE(20) ,SDAMP(5Q) ,AV (50)

DIMENSION 11 (300)
DIMENSION AMASS (50) ,EVAL(2Q) ,EVEC(50,20)
SAMPLE MAIN PROGRAM
IUNIT=7
CALL CONTBL (TITLE,N1J, NBH, E, G, 7)
CALL SETUP (NRJ,NRtt,E,G,XM,YM,DM,ND,NP,ABEA,CBMOM,DAMEAT,
AV,KL,KG,
1NU,NB,SDAHP,BHCAP,IUNIT,0)
NMODES=10
ICOUNT=0
AMAX=.5
IFLAG=0
CALL MASS (NU,ND,AMASS,IUNIT,NBJ)
IUNIT=6
IMAX=200
IM=IMAX-1
1=0
BETA=0.
EBRQB=1.E-3
10 CONTINUE
1=1+ 1
CALL BUILD (NU,NB,XM,YM,DH,NP,AREA,CEMOM,A7,E,G,DAMRAT,KL
, KG, NRM,S,
1500)
CALL EIGEN (NU, NB ,S,500,AMASS,EVAL,EVEC,NMODES,IUNIT)
IF (I .GE. .10) BETA=. 95
CALL MOD3 (ICOONT,2,NBJ,NRM,NU,NB,NMODES,S,500,ND,NP,XH,Y
3,DS,AREA,
1CBMOM,DAMBAT,KL,KG,SDAMP,BMCAP,E,AMASS,EVEC,EVAL,AMAX,
IS
IGN,
21 UNIT, BETA,ERROR , 1)
I1(I)=ISIGN
WRITE (8,201) (DAMRAT (II) ,11=1, NBM)
201 FORM AT ( ,15F8. 3)
IF (IPLAG. EQ. 1 . AND. I. EQ.IMAX) GO TO 40
IF(IFLAG.EQ. 1) GO TO 20
IF(I.EQ. 1 .AND. ISIGN.EQ.O) GO TO 46
IF(I.EQ.IM .OB. ISIGN.EQ.O) GO TO 35
GO TO 10
35 CONTINUE
IFLAG=1
IUNIT=7
GO TO 10
20 CONTINUE
WRITE(IUNIT,30) I
30 FOBS AT(*- *,5X,* NO. OF ITERATIONS =,I5///)
GO TO 50
40 CONTINUE
WRITE (IUNIT,45) I
45 FOBMAT(*-,5X,'DOES NOT CONVERGE AFTER*,15,*
ITERATION
175
sv//)
GO TO 50
46 CONTINUE
ICOUNT=0
IFLAG=1
IUNIT=7
WHITE (IBMIT,48)
18 FORK AT ('-* ,5X, 'MEMBERS DO NOT YIELD ///)
GO TO 10
50 CONTINUE
WRITE(IUNIT,60) BETA,ERROR
60 FORMAT('-* ,5X, 'BETA =,F5.3,///5X,ERROR = ,F8.6///)
JJJ=I-1
WRITE (7,200) (11 C U ) , I J = 1 * J J J )
200 FORM AT ( ,2016)
STOP
END
176
SUBROUTINE CONTRL(TITLE, NBJ,NRM, E,G,IUNIT)
DIMENSION TITLE(20)
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
,I5)
BEAD IN TITLE
BEAD
(5, 1) {TITLE (I) ,1=1,2 0)
BEAD IN NEJ,NBM,E,G
NBJ = NUMBEB OF JOINTS
NRM = NUMBEB OF MEMBERS
E
ELASTIC MODULUS IN KSI
G
SHEAfi MODULUS IN KSI
BEAD (5,2) NBJ, NRM, E, G
HBITE (IUNIT,3) (TITLE(I) ,1=1,20)
WRITE (IUNIT,4) E, G
WRITE (I0NIT,5)
WBITE (IUNIT,6) NBJ, NRM
RETURN
FOBMAT(20A4)
FORMAT(2I5,2F10. 0)
FOBMAT( 1 * ,20'A4)
FOBHAT(-,5X,E = , F8.3, 5X , G =* ,F8. 3)
FOBM AT
10 {*))
FOBM AT (*-* , ' NO* OF JOINTS*, = , 15, 10X, NO. OF MEMBERS =
END
177
SUBROUTINE SETUP (NRJ,NRM,,G,XM,YM,DM,ND,NP,AREA,CRMOM,D
AMRAT,A?,
1
KL,KG,NU,NB,SDAMP,B MCAP,IUNIT,IFL AG)
C
C
SET UP TBE FRAME DATA FOR MODIFIED SUBSTITUTE
C
STRUCTURE METHOD
C
DIMENSION KL (NRM) , KG (NRM), AREA (NRM) , CRMOM (NRM) , SDAMP
(NRM) ,
1
DAMRAT (NRM) , AV (NRM) , ND(3,NRJ), NP(6,NRM), XH
(NRM),
2
YM (NRM), DM(NRM)
DIMENSION X(100), Y(100), JNL(IOO), JNG(100), BMCAP (NRM)
C
JOINT NUMBER
JN
C
ND(1,JN)
JOINT DEGREE OF FREEDOM IN X-DIRECTION
C
= JOINT DEGREE OF FREEDOM IN Y-DIRECTION
C
ND(2,JN)
JOINT DEGREE OF FREEDOM IN ROTATION
C
ND (3, JN)
= X-COORDINATE OF JN IN FEET
X(JN)
c
Y(JN)
Y-COOEDINATE OF JN IN FEET
c
= MEMBER NUMBER
MN
c
= LESSER JOINT NUMBER
JNL(MN)
c
JNG
(MN)
GREATER JOINT NUMBER
c
=
KL
(MN)
MEMBER TYPE AT LESSER JOINT
c
=
KG(MN)
MEMBER TYPE AT GREATER JOINT
c
=
AREA
(MN)
AREA IN IN**2
c
=
CRMOM
(MN)
MOMENT OF INERTIA IN IN**4
c
DAMRAT (MN)
DAMAGE RATIO FOR MN
c
AV(MN)
c
- SHEAR AREA IN IN**2
BMCAP (MN) = YIELD MOMENT IN K-FT
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
XM (MN)
YM (MN)
DM(MN)
SDAMP (MN)
NP(I,MN)
NU
NB
WRITE
WRITE
C
C
C
MEMBER LENGTH IN X-DIRECTION
- MEMBER LENGTH IN Y-DIRECTION
MEMBER LENGTH
SUBSTITUTE DAMPING RATIO FOR MN
= MEMBER DEGREE OF FREEDOM
NUMBER OF UNKNOWNS
= HALF BANDWIDTH
(IUNIT, 1)
(IUNIT, 2)
READ IN JOINT DATA AND COMPUTE NO- OF DEGREES OF FREEDOM

NU=1
DO 50 1=1,NRJ
READ (5,3) JN, ND(1,I), HD(2,I), ND(3,I), X ( I ) , Y ( I
C
10
20
DO 40 -8=1,3
IF(ND(K,I)-1) 30,10,20
ND(K,I)=NU
NU=NU+1
GO TO 40
JNN=ND(K,I)
178
ND (K,I)=ND(K, JNN)
GO TO 40
CONTINUE
ND (K,I) =0
CONTINUE
30
40
C
C
C
PHINT JOINT DATA

WRITE (IUNIT,4) I , X (I) , 1(1)-, ND(1,I), ND(2,I), ND
(3,1)
50 CONTINUE
C
NU=NU-1
WRITE (I0NIT,5)
WRITE (IUNIT,6)
WRITE (IUNIT,7)
C
C
C
READ IN MEMBER DATA AND COMPUTE THE HALF BANDWIDTH

NB=0
DO 180 1=1,NRM
READ (5,8) MN, JNL(I) , JNG (I) , K L ( I ) , KG(I), AREA (I
60
70
80
C
C
90
100
110
CBMOH(I), DAMBAT (I) , AV (I) , BMCAP(I)

IF (IFLAG. NE. 1) GO TO 70
IF(DAHRAT (I).NE.Q.) GO TO 60
DAMR AT (I) = 1GO TO 80
DAMBAT (I) = 1.
CONTINUE
JX.=JNL(I)
JG=JNG(I)
XM (I)=X(JG)-X(JL)
YH(I)=Y(JG)-Y<JL)
DM (I)=SQBT ( (XM (I) ) **2 + (YM (I) ) **2)
DAMAGE=DAMBAT(I)
ROOT=SQBT(DAMAGE)
SDAMP (I) =0. 0 2*0- 2* ( 1 1 . /BOOT)
NP(1,I)=ND(1,JL)
NP(2,I)=ND(2,JL)
HP(3,I)=ND(3,JL)
NP(4,I)=ND(1,JG)
NP(5,I)=ND(2,JG)
NP{6/I)=HD(3,JG)
MAX=0
DO 110 K=1,6
IF (NP (K ,1) -MAX)
MAX=NP(K,I)
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
MIN=1Q0Q
DO 150 K=1,6
100,100,90
179
120
130
140
150
IF(NP(K,I)) 140,140,120
IF (NP (K,I)-HIN) 130,140, 140
MIN=NP(K,I)
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
160
170
NBB=MAX-MIN1
IF (NBB-NB) 170,170,160
NB=NBB
CONTINUE
C
C
C
PEINT MEMBER DATA
CD ,
WRITE
(IUNIT,9) I , J N L ( I ) , JNG(I), DM ( I ) , XM(I), YM
1
NP(1,I), NP(2,I), NP(3,I), NP(4,I), NP(5,I),
NP(6,I) ,
2
AREA ( I ) , CRMOH(I), DAMBAT (I) , AV(I) , BMCAP(I)
, KL{I),
3
KG (I)
C
CHANGE THE LENGTHS FBOM FEET TO INCHES
XM (I)=XH(I) *12.
YM (I)=YM(I) *12.
DH(I)=DM(I) *12.
180 CONTINUE
C
C
PRINT THE NO. OF DEGREES OF FREEDOM AND THE HALF BANDWID
TH
C
WRITE (IUNIT,11) NU
WRITE (IUNIT,12) NB
RETURN
1 FORM AT (*~ * , * JOINT DATA')
2 FOBMAT(* 0 *,7X, JN ,3X,'X(FEET),3X, Y(FEET),4X, NDX,2X
, NDY',
1
2X, NDB)
3 FORMAT(4I5,2F10.5)
4 FOBMAT (* ,5X,I4,2F10.3,2X,3I5)
5 FOBMAT{-,MEMBER DATA')
6 FORMAT( 0 ,7X,MN JNL JNG LENGTH XM (FT)
YH (FT) NP1 NP
2 NP3 NP4
1HP5 NP6
AREA
I (CRACKED) DAMAGE
A? * ,4X, * MOMENT *,
2
4X,KL,3X,KG)
7 FORM AT (* *,19X, (FEET) 1X^ (SQ.IN) *,2X, (IN**4) ,6X,R
ATIO,
1
2 X , ( S Q . I N ) CAPACITY*)
8 FOBMAT(5I5,5F10.5)
9 FOBS AT (* ,5X,3I4,3F8.2,6I4,F8. 1,F12. 1 ,2F8. 3 ,F10. 2, 215)
11 FOBM AT(*- *,NO.OF DEGREES OF FREEDOM OF STRUCTURE =,I5)
12 FOBMAT( 0 ,HALF BANDWIDTH OF STIFFNESS MATRIX
=',I5)
END
,
180
SUBROUTINE MASS(NU,ND,AMASS,IUNIT,NRJ)
C
C
THIS SUBROUTINE SETS UP THE MASS MATRIX
C
C
ND(J,I)=DEGBEES OF FREEDOM OF I TH JOINT
C
WTX,WTY,8TR=X-MASS,Y-MASS,ROT.MASS IN FORCE UNITS(KIPS 0
R IN-KIPS)
C
AMASS (I) =MASS MATRIX
C
NMASS=NO.OF MASS POINTS
C
C
MASSES ARE LUMPED AT NODES.. THE MASS MATRIX IS DIAGONAL
IZED.
C
DIMENSION ND(3,NRJ), AMASS (NU)
C
C
READ IN NO. OF NODES WITH MASS
C
READ (5,1) NMASS
WRITE (IDNIT,2)
WRITE (IUNIT,3) NMASS
WRITE (IUNIT,4)
WRITE (ION IT, 5)
C
C
ZERO MASS MATRIX
C
DO 10 1=1,NU
AMASS (I)=0.
10 CONTINUE
C
C
READ IN X-HASS,Y-MASS AND SOT. MASS
(IN UNITS OF WEIGHT
)
C
DO 50 1=1,NMASS
READ (5,6) JN, WTX, HTY, WTR
WRITE (IUNIT,7) JN, WTX, WTY, WTR
N1=ND(1, JN)
N2=ND(2,JN)
N3=ND(3,JN)
IF(N1.EQ. 0) GO TO 20
AMASS (N 1) =AH ASS (N 1) + (WTX/386. 4)
20
AMASS (N2) =A8ASS (N2) * (WTY/386.4)
30
AMASS (N3) =AMASS (H3) > (WTR/386.4)
40
CONTINUE
50 CONTINUE
C
RETURN
1 FORM AT (15)
2 FORMAT (///110 (*))
3 FORM AT (' *, NO. OF NODES WITH MASS*,* = ',I5)
4 FORMAT( 0,7X,'JN*,3X, X-MASS*,'*X, "Y-MASS* ,2X, ' ROT. MASS '
,
5 FORMAT ( ,12X,' (KIPS) *,4X, (KIPS) ,2X, (IN-KIPS) ')

6 FORM AT (15, 3F 10.0)
7 FORM AT ( ' ,5X,I4,3F10.3)
181
END
182
BAT,
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
DIMENSION XM (NRM) , YM (NRM) , DM (NRM) , NP(6,NRM), ABEA (NRM
CRMOM(NRM), AV(NRM) , DAMRAT (NRM) , KL (NRM), KG{
DIMENSION S(IDIM), SM(21)
DO 10 1=1,IDIM
S(I)=0.
10 CONTINUE
BEGIN MEMBER LOOP
DO 200 1=1,NRM
ZERO MEMBER STIFFNESS NATRIX
20
30
C
C
C
ZERO STRUCTURE STIFFNESS MATRIX
C
C
C
KL,KG,NBM,S,IDIM)
DAMRAT (I) = DAMAGE RATIO FOR I TH MEMBER

S(I)
= STRUCTURE STIFFNESS MATRIX
SM(I)
= MEMBER STIFFNESS MATRIX
NRM)
C
C
C
THIS SUBROUTINE CALCULATES THE STIFFNESS MATBIX OF EACH

MEMBER AND ADDS IT INTO THE STRUCTURE STIFFNESS MATRIX.
FLEXURAL STIFFNESSES OF MEMBERS ABE MODIFIED
ACCORDING TO THE DAMAGE RATIOS.
THE FINAL STIFFNESS MATBIX S IS RETURNED.
) ,
C
C
SUBROUTINE BUILD (NU,NB,XM,YM,DM,NP, AREA,CRMOM, AV,E,G,DAM
DO 20 J=1,21
SM (J)=0.
CONTINUE
DM2= DM (I) *DM (I)
XM2=XM(I) *XH (I)
YM2= YM (I) *YM (I)
XMYM=XH (I) *YM(I)
F=AREA (I) *E/(DM (I) *DM2)
H=0.
IF(AV(I).EQ.O. .OB.G.EQ.O.) GO TO 30
H=12-*E*CRMOM(I)/(AV (I) *G*DM2)
XM2F=XM2*F
M2F=YM2*F
XMYMF=XMM*F
FILL IN PIN-PIN SECTION OF MEMBER STIFFNESS MATRIX
SM (1)=XM2F
SM (2)=XHYMF
SM(1)=-XM2F
SM (5)=-XMYMF
SM(7)=YM2F
SH(9)=-XMYHF
183
40
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
50
SM (10)=-YM2F
SM (16)=XM2F
SM (17)=XMYMF
SH(19)=YM2F
IF (KL (I) +KG (I) -1) 100,40,50
F=3. *E*CRHOM (I) /(DM2*DM2*DM (I) * ( 1- /H/4. ) ) /DAMRAT (I)
GO TO 60
F=12.*E*CBMGM(I)/(DM2*DM2*DM(I)*(1.*H))/DAMBAT(I)
FILL IN TEBMS WHICH ABE COBaON TO PIN-FIX,FIX-PIN,AND
FIX-FIX a EMBERS
60
XH2F=XM2*F
YM2F=YM2*F
XMYMF=XMYM*F
DM2F=DH2*F
SH(1)=SM(1) *YM2F
SH (2) =SM (2)-XMYMF
SM (4)=SM (4)-YM2F
SM(5)=SM(5) +XHYMF
SM (7)=SM (7) +XM2F
SB (9)=SB(9) +XMYHF
Sa(10)=SM (10)-XM2F
SM(16)=SM(16) +YM2F
SM (17) =SH (17)-XMYMF
SM(19) = SH(19) + XH2F
IF(KL(I) -KG (I)) 70,80,90
FILL IN REMAINING PIN-FIX TERMS
70
SM (6) =-YH (I) *DM2F

SM (11)=XM (I) *DM2F
SH(18)=-SM(6)
SM (20) =-SN (11)
SM(21) = DH2*DM2F
GO TO 100
FILL IN REMAINING FIX-FIX TEEMS
80
SM (3) =- YM (I) *DM2F*. 5

SM (6)*SM{3)
SM(8)=XH(I)*DM2F*-5
SM(11)=SM<8)
SM(12)=DH2*DM2F*(4.+H)/12.
SH (13)=-SM (3)
SH (14) =-SM (8)
SM(15)=DM2*DM2F*(2.-H)/12SM (18)=-SM (3)
SM(20)=-SM (8)
SM (21)=SM (12)
GO TO 100
FILL IN REMAINING FIX-PIN TERMS
90
SH (3)=-YM (I) *DM2F

SM (8)=XM(I) *DM2F
184
100
C
C
C
C
SM (12)=DM2*DM2F
SM (13)=-SM (3)
SM (14)=-SM{8)
CONTINUE
ADD THE MEMBER STIFFNESS MATRIX SM INTO THE STROCTORE
STIFFNESS MATRIX SNB1=NB-1
C
110
DO 190 3=1,6
I F ( N P ( J , I ) ) 190,190,110
J1= (J-1)*(12-J)/2
DO 180 L=J,6
I F ( N P ( L , I ) ) 180, 180,120
IF(NP(J,I)-NP(L,I)) 150,130, 160
I F ( L - J ) 140,150, 140
K=(NP (L,I)-1) NBUNP (J,I)
H-J1+L
S (K)=S(K) *2.*SM (N)
GO TO 180
K= ( H P < J , I) -1) * NB 1 + NP ( L , I)
GO TO 170
K=(NP{L,I)-1)*NBH-NP(J,I)
N=J1*1
S(K)=S (K) *SM(N)
CONTINUE
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
C
C
C
190
CONTINUE
200 CONTINUE
RETURN
END
185
SUBROUTINE EIGEN (NU,NB,S,IDIM,AHASS,EVAL,EVEC,NMODES,IUN
IT)
C
C
THIS SUBROUTINE COMPUTES A SPECIFIED NO- OF NATURAL FSEQ
UENCIES
C
AND ASSOCIATED MODE SHAPES
C
C
NU=NQ. OF DEGREES OF FREEDOM
C
NB=HALF BANDWIDTH
C
NMODES=NO. OF MODE SHAPES TO BE COMPUTED
C
AMASS(I)=MASS MATRIX
M=RANK OF MASS MATRIX
C
S(I)=STIFFNESS MATRIX STORED BY COLUMNS
C
EVAL (I)NATURAL FREQUENCIES
C
EVEC (I,J)=MODE SHAPES
C
DIMENSION S(IDIM), AMASS (NU) , EVAL(NMODES), EVEC (50,20) ,
1
SCR (900)
DIMENSION CMASS(100), SS(500)
C
C
COMPUTE THE RANK OF MASS MATRIX
C
M=0
C
DO 10 1=1,NU
CMASS (I) =AMASS (I)
IF (AMASS (I).EQ.O. ) GO TO 10
M=M*1
10 CONTINUE
C
IF(NMODES.GT.M) NMODES=M
IF(NMODES.EQ.0) NMODES-M
WRITE (IUNIT,1) NMODES
C
C
CALL RVPOW TO COMPUTE EIGENVALUES AND EIGENVECTORS
C
DO 20 1=1,500
SS(I)=S(I)
20 CONTINUE
C
EPS=0.
EPSV=0.
CALL
RVPOWR(SS,CMASS NU,NB,EVEC 50 EVAL,NMODES,EPS,EPSV,
100,
1
SCR,M)
C
C
PRINT EIGENVALUES AND EIGENVECTORS (MODE SHAPES)
C
WRITE (IUNIT, 2)
WRITE (IUNIT, 3)
WRITE (IUNIT, H)
C
DO 30 1=1,NMODES
EVAL1=EVAL(I)
EVAL (I) =SQRT (EVAL 1)
FEEQ=EVAL (I)/6. 283185308
PERIOD=6.283185308/VAL(I)
#
186
WRITE
30 CONTINUE
C
C
WRITE
WRITE
(IUNIT,5) I , EVAL1, EVAL ( I ) , FREQ, PERIOD
(IDNIT,6) NMODES
(IUNIT,7) (1,1=1,NMODES)
DO 40 1=1,M
WRITE (IONIT,8) (EVEC (I, J) ,J= 1 , NMODES)
40 CONTINUE
///)
RETORN
1 FGRHAT{*-*,*NQ. OF MODES TO BE ANALIZED = ,I5///11 0 { * )
2 FORM AT (///110 (*))

3 FORMAT(*Q*,5X,MODES',4X, EIGENVALUES*,6X,* NATURAL FREQU
ENCIES* ,
1
13X,*PERIODS*)
4 FORMAT { ,30X, (RAD/SEC) ,5X,*(CYCS/SEC) *,8X,* (SECS) )
5 FORM AT {' *,5X,I5,4F15.4)
6 FORMAT{*0,5X,*MODE SHAPES CORRESPONDING TO FIRST*,15,*
FREQUENCIE
IS')
7 FORMAT{*0,10112)
8 FORMAT {* *,10F12. 6)
END
187
SUBROUTINE
MOD3(ICOUNT,ISPEC,NRJ,NRM,NU,NB,NMODES,S,IDIM
,ND,NP,XM,
1
YM,DH, AREA,CRMOM,DAMRAT,KL,KG SDAMP,BMCAP,E,&
MASS,EVEC,
2
EVAL , AM AX, I SIGN, I UNIT, BET A , ERROR, XBASE)
C
C
C
THIS SUBROUTINE COMPUTES JOINT DISPLACEMENTS AND MEMBER
FORCES
C
NEW DAMAGE RATIOS WILL BE CALCULATED AND RETURNED.
C
C
ICOUNT = 0 IF DAMPING IS SET AT 10% AND ELASTIC
C
ANALYSIS IS TO BE CARRIED OUT
C
ISPEC = 1 FOR SPECTRUM A, 2 FOR B, AND 3 FOR C
C
IDIM
= DIMENSION OF S ( I )
C
ISIGN = NUMBER OF MEMBERS FOR WHICH DAMAGE RATIOS
C
ARE MODIFIED
C
IUNIT = OUTPUT DEVICE UNIT
C
BETA
= CONSTANT FOR ACCELERATED CONVERGENCE
C
ERROR = CONSTANT FOR CONVERGENCE CRITERION
C
IBASE = 1 IF BASE SHEAR IS TO BE PRINTED
#
C
c
)
DIMENSION ND(3,NRJ), NP(6,NRH), XM (NRM) , YM(NRM), DM (NRM
1
G (NRM) ,
2
AREA (NRM), CRMOM (NRM) , DAMRAT (NRM), KL (NRM) , K

AMASS (NRM) , EVEC (50, 20), EVAL (NMODES) , S (IDIM)
SDAMP (NRM), ZETA(10), PI (100)

DIMENSION BMASS(40), IDOF(100), ALPHA (20), RMS (7, 100),
1
F(100) , D(6)
DIMENSION BMCAP (1)
C
C
C
CALCULATE THE MODAL PARTICIPATION FACTOR

JJ=1
DO 10 1=1,NU
IF (AMASS (I) . EQ-O. ) 30 TO 10
BMASS (JJ) =AMASS (I)
IDOF (JJ)=I
JJ=JJ*1
10 CONTINUE
JJ=JJ-1
DO 3 0 1=1,NMODES
AMT=0.
AMB=0.
ALPHA (I) =0.
20
DO 20 J=1,JJ
AMT=AMT*BMASS (I) *EVEC (J , I)
AM B=AMB*BMASS(I)*EVEC(J,I)**2
CONTINUE
188
C
C
C
ALPH &(I) = AMT/AMB

30 CONTINUE
WRITE
(IUNIT,1)
DO 4 0 1=1,NMODES
WRITE (IUNIT,2) I , ALPHA (I)
40 CONTINUE
C
C
WHEN KK=1, MODAL FORCES FOR UNDAMPED SUBSTITUTE STRUCTUR
E ARE
C
COMPUTED. THEY ARE USED TO COMPUTE * SMEARED * DAMPING VA
LUES,
C
WHICH ARE USED TO CALCULATE THE ACTUAL RESPONSE OF THE S
UBSTITUTE
C
STRUCTURE
C
INDEX=1
C
DO 420 KK=1,2
IF(ICOUNT-I) 400,70,50
50
CONTINUE
IF (KK.NE. 1) GO TO 70
C
DO 60 K=1,NMODES
ZETA<K)=0.
60
CONTINUE
C
70
CONTINUE
SHRMS=0.
C
C
ZERO ABSO(J,I) AND RMS (J,I)
C
DO 90 1=1,100
C
DO 80 J=1,7
RMS (J,I)=0.
80
CONTINUE
C
90
CONTINUE
C
C
CALCULATE THE MODAL DISPLACEMENT VECTOR
C
DO 290 K=1,NMODES
C
C
CALCULATE NATURAL PERIOD AND CALL SPECTA
C
WN = 6. 2831 85308/EVAL (K)
DAMP=ZETA (K)
CALL SPECTS(ISPEC,DAMP,WN,AMAX,SA)
C
C
ZERO LOAD VECTOR
C
DO 100 J=1,NU
F(J)=0.
189
C
100
FF=0.
C
C
C
COMPUTE LOAD VECTOR

FAC=SA*ALPHA(K)*386.4
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
110
DO 110 J=1,JJ
I1=IDOF(J)
F (I1)=EVEC (J,K) *FAC*AMASS (11)
FF=FF+F(I1)
CONTINUE
CALCULATE THE BASE SHEAR
120
IF(KK.NE.2) GO TO 120
SHRMS=SHRHS+FF**2
IF(K.LT.NMODES) GO TO 120
SHRMS=SQBT (SHRMS)
CONTINUE
COMPUTE DEFLECTIONS
CALL SUBROUTINE FBAND
RATIO=1.E-7
CALL FBAND(S,F,NU,NB,INDEX,RATIO,DET,JEXP,0,0,0.)
INDEX=INDEX+1
DO
130
140
150
160
C
C
C
CONTINUE
160 1=1,NRJ
DX=0DY=0.
DR=0.
N1=ND(1,I)
N2=ND(2,I)
N3=ND(3,I)
IF(NI-EQ-O) GO TO 130
DX=F(N1)
BBS(1,1)=RMS(1,I)*DX**2
CONTINUE
IF(N2.EQ.0) GO TO 140
DY=F(N2)
RMS (2,1)-BBS(2,1)*DY**2
CONTINUE
IF(N3.EQ.O) GO TO 150
DR=F (N3)
RMS(3,1)-BBS(3,1)+DR**2
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
COMPUTE MEMBER FORCES

SIGPI=0.
190
DO 260 1=1,NBM
DO 200 J=1,6
N1 = NP(J,I)
IF{N1) 180,180,170
D(J)=F(N1)
GO TO 190
D(J)=0.
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
170
180
190
200
XL=XM(I)
L=YM (I)
DL=DM (I)
&XIAL= (ABEA (I) *E/DL**2) * (D (4) *XL + D (5) *L-D ( 1)*X
L-D{2) *YL)
210
220
230
240
C
C
C
C
C
C
COMPUTE THE RELATIVE FLEXU8AL STBAIN ENEBGY
250
IF(KK.NE.1) GO TO 250
PI (I) = (BML**2*BMG**2*BML*BMG) /6./AK
SIGPI=SIGPI*PI(I)
CONTINUE
ACCUMULATE ABSOLUTE SUM AND BMS SUM
260
C
C
C
IF (KL (I) .EQ. 0 . AND. KG (I) .EQ.O) GO TO 230

DV= (D (2) *XLD (1) *YL+D (4) *YL-D (5) *XL)/DL
AK=CBMOM (I) *E/DL/DAMBAT (I)
BHL=-AK*(6.*DV/DL*4.*D(3) +2. *D(6) )/12.
SHEAB=AK*6. * (2- *DV/DL*D (3) *D (6) ) /DL
BMG=BHL+SHEAB*DL/12.
IF (KL (I) -KG (I)) 210,240,220
BHG=BMG+BML*.5
SHEAB=SHEAB1.5*BHL/(DL/12.)
BML=0.
GO TO 240
BML=BML*BMG*.5
SHEAB=SHEAB-1.5*BMG/(DL/12.)
BHG=0.
GO TO 240
BMG=0.
BEL=0.,
SHEAB=0.
CONTINUE
BMS (4,1) =BMS(4,I) *AXIAL**2

BMS(5,I)=BHS(5,1)+SHEAB**2
BMS (6,I)=BMS(6,I) +BSL**2
BMS (7,1)=BMS(7,1)*BMG**2
CONTINUE
COMPUTE THE SMEABED DAMPING FOB EACH MODE
IF(KK.NE.I) GO TO 280
DO 270 1=1,NBM
191
270
C
280
290
ZETA (K) = ZETA (K) + PI(I) *SDAMP(I)

CONTINUE
ZETA (K) =ZETA (K) /SIGPI
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
C
I F (KK. EQ. 1) GO TO 420
C
C
C
PRINT RMS DISPLACEMENTS AND FORCES

WRITE
WRITE
WRITE
DO 310 1=1,NBJ
300
C
C
C
C
(IUNIT,4)
(IUNIT,5)
(IUNIT 3)
310
DO 300 J=1,3
SCRAT=RaS{J,I)
RMS (J, I) =SQRT{SCRAT)
CONTINUE
WRITE (IUNIT,6) I , (BMS (J,I) , J= 1,3)
CONTINUE
MODIFY DAMAGE RATIOS
320
C
330
340
350
360
370
C
380
WRITE (10NIT,7)
IF(IBASE.NE. 1) GO TO 320
WRITE (IUNIT,8) SHBHS
CONTINUE
WRITE (IUNIT,9)
ISIGN=0
DO 390 1=1,NRM
I F (RMS (6,I)-RMS (7,1) ) 330,330,340
BIG=RMS(7,I)
GO TO 350
BIG=RMS(6,I)
CONTINUE
BM=SQBT (BIG)
DAM0LD=DAMBAT (I)
DAMRAT (I) =BM/BMCAP (I) *DAMRAT (I)
DAMBAT (I) =DAMRAT (I) +BETA* (DAMRAT (I) D AMOLD)
IF (DAMBAT (I) . LT. 1.0) GO TO 360
CHECK=ABS (BM-BMCAP (I) ) /BMCAP (I)
I F (CHECK. GT.ERROR) ISIGN=ISIGN+1 .
GO TO 370
CONTINUE
DAMRAT (I) = 1.
CONTINUE
SDAMP (I)=0.02+0.2*(1.-1-/SQBT(DAMRAT(I)))
DO 380 J=4,7
RMS (J,I) =SQBT (BMS (J,I) )
CONTINUE
192
C
AMRAT (I)
390
C
C
WRITE (I0NIT,11) I , (RHS(J,I) ,J=4,7) , BMCAP(I), D

CONTINUE
400
GO TO 420
CONTINUE
410
DO 4 10 1=1,NMODES
ZETA (I) =. 1
CONTINUE
ICOUNT=ICOUNT*1
WRITE {IHNIT,12)
420 CONTINUE
ICOUNT=ICOUNT+1
RETURN
1 FORM AT {-',* MODAL PARTICIPATION FACTOR*,/)
2 FORM AT(* ,5X,MODE,I5,5X,F10.5)
3 FORMAT (*-' ,7X,*JOINT NO. ,10X, 'X-DISP(IN) ' , 10X, Y-DISP (I
N)',7X,
1
'ROTATION (RAD)')
4 FORMAT (* , 110 (**') )
5 FORM AT('-',*ROOT MEAN SQUARE DISPLACEMENTS *)
6 FORMAT {* ,6X,I10,3F20.4)
7 FORMAT(*-*,* ROOT MEAN SQUARE FORCES')
8 FORM AT(1H0,7X,RSS BASE SHEAR = *,F10.3)
9 FORMAT(* * ,8X,* MN *,1QX,* AXIAL*,10X,SHEAR*,11X,*BML*,12X
,* BMG',
1
9X,'MOMENT*,1 OX,'DAMAGE*/21X,KIPS,12X,KIPS',2(
9X, (KFT)
2*),
8X, * CAPACITY' ,9X, * RATIO *)
11 FORMAT {* ,5X,I5,6F15.3)
12 FORMAT(*~* ,110 (*))
END
193
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
SUBROUTINE SPECTR (ISPEC,DAMP,WN,AMAX,SA)

ISPEC=1 I F SPECTRUM A IS USED
=2 I F SPECTRUM B IS USED
=3 I F SPECTRUM C IS USED
DAMP=DAMPING FACTOR (FRACTION OF CRITICAL DAMPING)
WN =NATURAL PERIOD IN SECONDS
AMAX=MAXIMUH GROUND ACCELERATION (FRACTION OF G)
SA =RESPONSE ACCELERATION (FRACTION OF G)
I F (ISPEC. EQ. 2) GO TO 10
IF (ISPEC. EQ. 3) GO TO 60
SPECTRUM A
IF (WN.LT. 0. 15) SA=25.*AMAX*WN
IF (WN.GE-0. 15 .AND. WN.LT.0.4) SA=3.75*AMAX
IF(WN.GT-0-4) SA=1.5*AMAX/WN
GO TO 90
SPECTRUM B
10 CONTINUE
IF (WN.LT.0.1875) GO TO 20
IF (WN.LT. 0-53333333) GO TO 30
IF (WN.LT. 1. 6666667) GO TO 40
IF(WN.LT.1.81666667) GO TO 50
SA=2.*AMAX/(WN-0.75)
GO TO 90
20 SA=20.*AMAX*WN
GO TO 90
30 SA=3.75*AMAX
GO TO 90
40 SA=2.*AMAX/WN
GO TO 90
50 SA=1.875*AMAX
GO TO 90
SPECTRUM C
60 CONTINUE
IF(WN.LT.O. 15) GO TO 70
IF (WN.LT. 0.38333333) GO TO 80
SA=0. 5*AHAX/ (WN-0. 25)
GO TO 90
70 SA=25.*AMAX*WN
GO TO 90
80 SA=3.75*AMAX
90 CONTINUE
SA=SA*8./(6.*100.*DAMP)
RETURN
END

Ubc - 1979 - A7 Y68

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Ubc - 1979 - A7 Y68

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

MODIFIED

this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for

an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that

It is understood that copying or publication

of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my

The University of British Columbia

The m o d i f i e d s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method i s developed

b u i l d i n g s c o n s t r u c t e d before the most r e c e n t advances i n seismic

The main c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the proposed method i s

the use of m o d i f i e d l i n e a r a n a l y s i s f o r p r e d i c t i n g the

represented by a l i n e a r response spectrum.

v o l v e s an e x t e n t i o n of the s u b s t i t u t e s t r u c t u r e method, which

With p r o p e r t i e s and s t r e n g t h s of a s t r u c t u r e known, the m o d i f i e d

s u b s t i t u t e damping f a c t o r s are used

s t r e n g t h s were t e s t e d by the proposed method and the

The method appears t o work w e l l f o r s t r u c t u r e s i n which

y i e l d i n g i s not e x t e n s i v e and widespread.

appears to work b e t t e r f o r those i n which y i e l d i n g occurs mainly

Purpose and Scope

Periods and Mode Shapes

Combination of Forces and

Examples and Observations

2-Bay, 3-Story Frame

MODIFIED SUBSTITUTE STRUCTURE METHOD

Assumptions and Comments

2-Bay, 2-Story Frame

3-Bay, 3-Story Frame

1-Bay, 6-Story Frame

3-Bay, 6-Story Frame

FACTORS AFFECTING MODIFIED SUBSTITUTE

Computed Damage R a t i o s f o r 3-, 5-, and 10-Story

Comparison o f Damage R a t i o s f o r 3-, 5-, and

Computed N a t u r a l P e r i o d s f o r 3-, 5-, and

N a t u r a l P e r i o d s f o r 2-Bay, 3-Story Frame A

Damage R a t i o s f o r 2-Bay, 3-Story Frame A

N a t u r a l P e r i o d s f o r 2-Bay, 3-Story Frame B

Number of I t e r a t i o n s - 2-Bay, 3-Story Frame B....

Damage R a t i o s f o r 2-Bay, 3-Story Frame B

N a t u r a l P e r i o d s f o r 2-Bay, 2-Story Frame

Displacements f o r 2-Bay, 2-Story Frame

N a t u r a l P e r i o d s f o r 3-Bay, 3-Story Frame

Displacements f o r 3-Bay, 3-Story Frame

N a t u r a l P e r i o d s f o r 1-Bay, 6-Story Frame

Displacements f o r 1-Bay, 6-Story Frame

N a t u r a l P e r i o d s f o r 3-Bay, 6-Story Frame

Displacements f o r 3-Bay, 6-Story Frame

N a t u r a l P e r i o d s f o r 3-Bay, 6-Story Frame A Spectrum B

Displacements f o r 3-Bay, 6-Story Frame A Spectrum B

Displacements f o r 3-Bay, 6-Story Frame B Spectrum

N a t u r a l Periods f o r 3-Bay, 6-Story Frame B Spectrum A

Displacements f o r 3-Bay, 6-Story Frame B Spectrum

N a t u r a l P e r i o d s f o r 3-Bay, 6-Story Frame B E l Centro EW Spectrum

and T a f t S69E Spectrum

Displacements f o r 3-Bay, 6-Story Frame B E l Centro EW Spectrum

Displacements f o r 3-Bay, 6-Story Frame B T a f t S69E Spectrum

N a t u r a l Periods f o r 3-Bay, 6-Story Frame A E l Centro EW Spectrum

and T a f t S69E Spectrum

Displacements f o r 3-Bay, 6-Story Frame A E l Centro EW Spectrum

Displacements f o r 3-Bay, 6-Story Frame A T a f t S69E Spectrum

Flow Diagram f o r S u b s t i t u t e S t r u c t u r e Method

Member P r o p e r t i e s and Design Moments f o r 3-,

Smoothed Response Spectrum - Design Spectrum A...

S o f t Story Frame A - Member P r o p e r t i e s and